SEVILLE, February 9 (RIA Novosti) - Washington's plans to deploy elements of its anti-ballistic missile system in Europe may affect the military-strategic situation, the Russian defense minister said Friday.

"We consider that this transition to practical implementation of a defense program which is closed to Russia, particularly in the light of the U.S. decision to deploy a missile defense base in Eastern Europe, will lead to a worsening of the military-strategic situation," Sergei Ivanov said at an informal session of the Russia-NATO Council in southern Spain.

Russian analysts argued earlier in the week that Washington's consistent efforts to redeploy its missile defense system closer to Russia's borders suggest the U.S. seeks to revive the Cold War.

Washington has recently moved its largest sea-based missile defense radar in the Pacific from Hawaii to the Aleutian Islands, not far from Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula. It has also announced plans to install a radar system in the Czech Republic and a missile interceptor in Poland, which it says it needs to protect itself against a potential threat from Iran.

Ivanov described the U.S. missile shield as "a new virtual Berlin wall."

"The positive background of Russia-NATO cooperation should not serve as a cover for the formulation of anti-Russian plans," Ivanov said.

He said the capabilities of anti-ballistic missile defense systems are determined not by their belonging to this or that state, or by declared political goals, but by real technical opportunities, geography, and scale of deployment.

Moscow has always strongly resisted the deployment of a missile shield in its former backyard in Central Europe, describing the plans as a threat to national security.

At an annual news conference at the beginning of the month, President Vladimir Putin called Washington's justification of the missile shield unconvincing, and pledged to amend Russia's military strategy.

"All our responses will be asymmetric, but highly effective," the president said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with German weekly Der Spiegel that Moscow will respond in an "intellectual" way to moves by the United States to position its anti-ballistic missile defense systems in locations that threaten Russia.

He said Russia does not intend to spend money on a senseless arms race.

Lavrov said Washington seems to have almost clinched agreements to deploy elements of its anti-missile defense system in Central Europe.

"As for the U.S. anti-ballistic missile defense, we see no objective reasons for placing elements of it in Europe, and do not consider threats from North Korea and Iran sufficient for such radical shifts in strategic stability," Lavrov said.

The foreign minister said the Russian side wants full transparency, and is discussing these issues with U.S. partners, including through the Russia-NATO Council, in order to get a clear explanation for these plans.

Xtoisè

02-09-2007, 08:39 PM

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070209/60480804.html

Ivanov also said comments by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates about Russia's unpredictability were an attempt to pressure the U.S. Congress to approve the Pentagon's budget.

"In principle, as defense minister, I can understand this statement. All sorts of tricks are used to approve the budget," he said.

"As far as predictability is concerned, I believe that Russia is as predictable as the U.S.," the minister added.

He also said the 10 interceptor missiles that the U.S. is planning to deploy in Poland do not threaten Russia's security, but that the measure is pointless.

"We are being told that the system will be installed in the Czech Republic and Poland to prevent missile launches by North Korea or Iran. Everyone knows that it is easier to intercept any missile at the boost phase. The question is, why should our American partners not deploy these systems elsewhere - for example, in Turkey or Afghanistan or Iraq," he said.

themacedonian

02-09-2007, 09:01 PM

Everyone knows that it is easier to intercept any missile at the boost phase. The question is, why should our American partners not deploy these systems elsewhere - for example, in Turkey or Afghanistan or Iraq," he said.

yes boost phase of Russian missiles.

missiles in Poland, US invitation of Georgia to NATO, Romania and Bulgaria to NATO, radar stations in Latvia, Norway, Robert Gates speech to Congress is ALL a coincidence.

Hunterhr

02-09-2007, 09:19 PM

The US has bigger problems.

lightfire

02-09-2007, 10:12 PM

Ivan said
we have ze greatest Balistic missiles eva-Topol M, they will beat ANY defence in existance,or that would be invented-ANY!They are unchrushable,unbreakable,untrackable...but you see, this defencive shield of yours is a threat to us...Oh, and you are our firends,key partners and allies, oh, but you must leave our close border NOW..
..............

KillerBD

02-09-2007, 10:14 PM

The US has bigger problems.

x2, seems like a waste of money. The "Cold War" is over, whats the point???

Adax

02-09-2007, 11:58 PM

Russia can say what they want. But they can't do nothing(in this case).

nagant_m44

02-10-2007, 12:02 AM

..............

yes, we know you are an idiot.

RBull

02-10-2007, 12:14 AM

x2, seems like a waste of money. The "Cold War" is over, whats the point???

Well, maybe this all shows that the Cold war is not really over...

newb

02-10-2007, 01:24 AM

aside from the cold war comment - Ivanov is a complete dumb-*ss and an embarrassment - just read/listen to some of the comments he makes about foreign policy, military budget.

Thor

02-10-2007, 01:34 AM

Russia sells air-defence systems to Iran and dismisses international criticism by stating that it's a defensive system

I can't think of anything more defensive than a missile shield. Ivanov has his head pretty far up his ass if he believes that his country can threaten other countries and they can't do anything about it. :)

Xtoisè

02-10-2007, 01:39 AM

..............

expansion of NATO caused further development of Topol'-M

Kilgor

02-10-2007, 03:56 AM

I think the US would be more concerned about the sandbox first, and china second.

NicNZ

02-10-2007, 04:04 AM

Russia can say what they want. But they can't do nothing(in this case).

Are you saying that Russia must do something or that it cant do anything? Careless grammar costs lives.

perdurabo

02-10-2007, 06:37 AM

he used double denial from Polish language :)

lightfire

02-10-2007, 07:30 AM

expansion of NATO caused further development of Topol'-M

oh yes, mighty Estonia is now a threat to Russia, with its WMDs- Kiullamea-II balistic missiles on Russias border..Polan is a threat too, with its antibalistic shield and OMFG D3LtA!!11!! secrect nuclear ICBMs- "Pan Tadeuz-IV"...

Switek

02-10-2007, 08:34 AM

Why most of you use 20th century point of view over strategical issues regarding new situation and new threats wich were completly impossible to predict during cold war.

North Korea and Iran have their nuke development programs. The result is that manz sunni Arab states declared to start their own. When Iran gets its first nuke the we all can forget about nondissemination of offensive nuclear weapons.

The current range of missles is a myth. The ABM facility should be operative no sooner than 2012-15 or even later. In this time there will not be any obstacles to Iran or anyone to imcrease range of missles few times more...

I'm repeting myself again: the main stage of current conflicts is Asia. It's the most politicaly unstable (except Africa) region with resources and with the biggest contrasts about level of life. There are a lot hot and latent military conflicts.

Nightstalker_pl

02-10-2007, 08:35 AM

Please learn polish first :P

PAN TADEUSZ IV if You wanted to say something about it :P :D

Herrmannek

02-10-2007, 08:44 AM

Are you saying that Russia must do something or that it cant do anything? Careless grammar costs lives.
haha:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative

And as far as I understood him, he said: In this situation only thing Russia can do is talking and waving the saber, and second part of the sentence: this and everything else will fail to have any effect anyway...

themacedonian

02-10-2007, 08:46 AM

oh yes, mighty Estonia is now a threat to Russia, with its WMDs- Kiullamea-II balistic missiles on Russias border..Polan is a threat too, with its antibalistic shield and OMFG D3LtA!!11!! secrect nuclear ICBMs- "Pan Tadeuz-IV"...

This is on the border of Estonia and Latvia

Latvia has agreed to installing Lockheed Martin's TPS-177 radar system in the town of Audrini in the eastern part of the country. The system will allow for the monitoring of airspace in a 450 kilometer radius.

So is there a Russian radar station monitoring air traffic over any section of United States and its capital or at least an attempt by Russia to do that?

Estonia and Latvia are not a threat but they do provide the real estate for NATO.

Herrmannek

02-10-2007, 08:50 AM

Please learn polish first :P

PAN TADEUSZ IV if You wanted to say something about it :P :D

there is a secret forum rule we don't nitpick other users writing skill abilities....

Switek

02-10-2007, 08:53 AM

...

Estonia and Latvia are not a threat but they do provide the real estate for NATO.

This what Bielarus do for Russia.... weak argument... :-(

lightfire

02-10-2007, 09:25 AM

This is on the border of Estonia and Latvia

Latvia has agreed to installing Lockheed Martin's TPS-177 radar system in the town of Audrini in the eastern part of the country. The system will allow for the monitoring of airspace in a 450 kilometer radius.

So is there a Russian radar station monitoring air traffic over any section of United States and its capital or at least an attempt by Russia to do that?

Estonia and Latvia are not a threat but they do provide the real estate for NATO.

Yes, and you know what- that's for baltic airspace control!Not just for fun-Russian aircraft have usually violated airspace of Baltic countries, and sopmetimes do that now, but less. You need to have good radars to track them-noone knows when will the next Trojanov get lost and crash somewhere in on of the Baltic countries. Russia has radars at the border, baltic countries have their own radars. They are NATO radars as well, because Baltic countries are part of NATO-ok?

oh yes, and PAN TADEUSZ - IV ICBM... ;)

Slinky

02-10-2007, 11:43 AM

lol Russia is going to step on the same rake again

Flamming_Python

02-10-2007, 05:06 PM

lol Russia is going to step on the same rake again

And what rake is that?

8thidpathfinderpower

02-10-2007, 05:21 PM

And what rake is that?

The same rake that smacked them in the face the first time.

You think Putin and his cabinet could keep their big yap shut...but no, cries of the US ABM shield justifies a new class of mobile ICBM. The same cries are giving permission to sell arms not only to the highest bidder, but some of these states have major ties to terrorist activity, illegal narcotics trafficking, and governments that threaten regional stability. The same cries justify an expansion of all tactical and stratigic forces, and threat of invasion of soverign countries of the former soviet union, and a resurgent communist party within the government. Sounds like a bunch of saber ratteling to me....no wait, thats the cry of world peace from the enemies of the United States and the west.:bash:

8thidpathfinderpower

02-10-2007, 05:27 PM

This is on the border of Estonia and Latvia

Latvia has agreed to installing Lockheed Martin's TPS-177 radar system in the town of Audrini in the eastern part of the country. The system will allow for the monitoring of airspace in a 450 kilometer radius.

So is there a Russian radar station monitoring air traffic over any section of United States and its capital or at least an attempt by Russia to do that?

Estonia and Latvia are not a threat but they do provide the real estate for NATO.

Thats a good question..does Russia have a radar system to keep track of air traffic inside of the United States.....yep they sure do. And they have space monitoring capabilities as well.

And, they have a very comprahensive ABM net work to counter an ICBM/IRBM threat from any corner of the world. Not to mention a very robust and capable nuclear strike capability, should they feel threatend enough to use it.

KMS

02-10-2007, 06:29 PM

The West had a chance to end the Cold war in the 90s, it chose not to.
We are at the dawn of the second Cold war and this time Russia holds the upper hand in both ideology (I think it is pretty safe to say that US is currently the least liked country around the most of the world nowadays) and resources.

USSR was forced to fight the first Cold war right after WW2 which left it in ruins while propelling US to the new level of wealth,so right of the start US has the advantage.
Russia had to rebuild USSR's economy and infrastructure, sponsor satelite states and anyone in the world who was symphatetic to its cause.
How they managed all that plus the space program and military build up - is beyond my comprehension... truly fascinating...

US, on the other hand, made a very smart move/investment - Marshall's plan and started to get dividends back almost immidiately.

Today the situation is exactly reversed: US in several in many resource draining conflics and commited to sponsoring multiple governments around the world with the negative bottom line on the income statement.
Add to this trade deficit, 9+ trill national debt, the need to borrow money from China and SA just to keep going... not pretty.

Russia, on the other hand, shed itself of any financial and moral obligations to anybody, paid off its debts, accumulated gold reserves worth 300+ bill and growing, set aside 100 bill in stabilization fund (just in case) and posts budget surplus...

Not to mention the fact that Russia has no problem with the multipolar world, while US wants to be #1 and therefore has to compete on multiple fronts (both expensive and very dangerous).

Face it, US and Russia will never be friends.

An excellent article explaining why things are the way they are
http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/5814

8thidpathfinderpower

02-10-2007, 06:43 PM

The West had a chance to end the Cold war in the 90s, it chose not to.
We are at the dawn of the second Cold war and this time Russia holds the upper hand in both ideology (I think it is pretty safe to say that US is currently the least liked country around the most of the world nowadays) and resources.

USSR was forced to fight the first Cold war right after WW2 which left it in ruins while propelling US to the new level of wealth,so right of the start US has the advantage.
Russia had to rebuild USSR's economy and infrastructure, sponsor satelite states and anyone in the world who was symphatetic to its cause.
How they managed all that plus the space program and military build up - is beyond my comprehension... truly fascinating...

US, on the other hand, made a very smart move/investment - Marshall's plan and started to get dividends back almost immidiately.

Today the situation is exactly reversed: US in several in many resource draining conflics and commited to sponsoring multiple governments around the world with the negative bottom line on the income statement.
Add to this trade deficit, 9+ trill national debt, the need to borrow money from China and SA just to keep going... not pretty.

Russia, on the other hand, shed itself of any financial and moral obligations to anybody, paid off its debts, accumulated gold reserves worth 300+ bill and growing, set aside 100 bill in stabilization fund (just in case) and posts budget surplus...

Not to mention the fact that Russia has no problem with the multipolar world, while US wants to be #1 and therefore has to compete on multiple fronts (both expensive and very dangerous).

Face it, US and Russia will never be friends.

An excellent article explaining why things are the way they are
http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/5814

To my knowledge, Russia is still getting food assistance from the United States. It still has a massive debt, and its currency is undervalued. Russia makes its money from arms sales and energy products, but still has problems bringing itself out of the mess it caused to its self during the cold war. Add to that a very high crime rate and rampant povertyand political instability, and Russia has alot of problems.

The point of the thread, and not going into who is better than who crap, is the response and statements made by officials inside of the Russian government. These statements are alarming, not only because of the threats implied to the smaller former satilite countries of the former USSR, but because of the potentional for another cold war style arms race, or worse yet, Russian military involvement inside of the countries with other agendas than the west. And, the Russians selling arms to countries that either sponsor terror groups or the groups them selves, does not help the cause either.

To my knowledge, the cold war ended after the fall of the former Soviet Union and its influance over what was the former Warsaw pact countries in europe.

lightfire

02-10-2007, 07:01 PM

The West had a chance to end the Cold war in the 90s, it chose not to.

They actually did.

We are at the dawn of the second Cold war and this time Russia holds the upper hand in both ideology (I think it is pretty safe to say that US is currently the least liked country around the most of the world nowadays) and resources.
Perhaps that is a begining of smth. Someone in the West has to open their eyes, someone in the East, to unveil their true nature and wishes...Yet I don't see Russia leading anywhere in ideology and resources. USA might be hated in much part of the world due to its arrogant actions (****-*****-******* syndrome), renowness and simply because it's the most powerfull, yet Russia does not show any ideology, the world could folow. Countries folow Russia only because its gas, oil and huge market (which now becomes more and more difficult for foreign investments) .This will not last forever. The future of the modern age are technologies, in which USA is investing huge amount of resources, while Russia is loosing it's resources-talented people, technologies 4sale, and besides+huge reduction of population due various reasons. You can't expect countries will listen to you long enough, just because you have gas, oil pipes and threaten to shut them down.Where's you potential? USA is stuck in conflicts, yes, but this will not last forever as well-it's still going up.

USSR was forced to fight the first Cold war

Oh, what a nice sentence..:cantbeli: says it all..

right after WW2 which left it in ruins while propelling US to the new level of wealth,so right of the start US has the advantage.

was it USA's fault?

How they managed all that plus the space program and military build up - is beyond my comprehension... truly fascinating...

US, on the other hand, made a very smart move/investment - Marshall's plan and started to get dividends back almost immidiately.

yup, they did the right thing, while SU introduces iron fist (soviet soldiers, tanks, colectivisation, comunist brainshowers..). However,didn't the SU used smth alike the Marshal plan for East Block countries? More based on controlled and ideologicaly cleaned heavy industry, colective agriculture..that appeared to be ineffective.

Russia, on the other hand, shed itself of any financial and moral obligations to anybody, paid off its debts, accumulated gold reserves worth 300+ bill and growing, set aside 100 bill in stabilization fund (just in case) and posts budget surplus...

good, an achievement. However, there's still huge corruption, clans, smth wrong with investments.

Not to mention the fact that Russia has no problem with the multipolar world, while US wants to be #1 and therefore has to compete on multiple fronts (both expensive and very dangerous).

no need to fool yourself-Russia also wants to be that No.1 in the World, it misses world domination of SU times. At the time, it has no other real means to dictate the rules, except it's resources and dependency of other countries.

They actually did.
By expanding NATO and undermining Russia's stability in every way possible?

someone in the East, to unveil their true nature and wishes...
So what that nature and wishes would be?

Russia does not show any ideology the world could folow
It currently doesn't have any

Countries folow Russia only because its gas, oil and huge market (which now becomes more and more difficult for foreign investments)
So what is wrong with that?

This will not last forever.
When will it end?

The future of the modern age are technologies,
As history shows - Russia never had any problems on that front, so what changed?

in which USA is investing huge amount of resources
USA or the US companies that outsource their manufacturing and research facilities to the other countries?

, while Russia is loosing it's resources-talented people,
Was true 1990 - 1997, the trend is exactly reversed now
Use http://balancer.ru/tech/forum/viewforum.php?id=13 to get up to speed.

technologies 47sale,
What else is there to do with them, keep 'em under the matress?
Technoloies are meant to generate income/increase wealth.

and besides+huge reduction of population due various reasons.
Huge? Define huge.
EU is also facing demographic issues, why is theirs less of a problem than Russian? At least Russian government addresses the problem with significant financial incentives.

You can't expect countries will listen to you long enough,
Why would some countries listen to me?

just because you have gas, oil pipes
I do not have gas, thank you and never seen an oil pipe.

Where's you potential?
???

USA is stuck in conflicts, yes, but this will not last forever
Of course not, political will is quickly running out.

as well-it's still going up.
what gives you such an impression?

was it USA's fault?
I do not recollect any of the Soviet leaders & generals making on the record statements similar to Patton's, Ike's and Churchill's.

partially slavorry work,
Elaborate

iron fist,
Elaborate

and there you go..
That simple...
So where you are from and what spectacular achievements can your people claim?

However,didn't the SU used smth alike the Marshal plan for East Block countries?
No they haven't as they had no resources left to invest.
WW2 enriched US while USSR was left in ruins.

no need to fool yourself-Russia also wants to be that No.1 in the World,
How did you come to that conclusion?

it misses world domination of SU times.
Did you conduct a poll in Russia asking that question? What is your opinion based on?

Nver say never, comrade
I am not your comrade

.............

Switek

02-10-2007, 07:41 PM

KMS, could you do not post your commentns in quotas... it makes impossible to make any reply...?

btw. your "catching a word, statement" way is not productive and brings nothing to this dispute... bad style...

KMS

02-10-2007, 07:51 PM

KMS, could you do not post your commentns in quotas... it makes impossible to make any reply...?
It is the most convenient way for me to comment on particular points that poster makes.

btw. your "catching a word, statement" way is not productive
I find it extremely productive in answering whether the poster knows what he is talking about/has reliable information on the subject or simply throws in his personal opinions, bias and operates on propaganda, myths and stereotypes.

and brings nothing to this dispute...
In your opinion, in mine - it brings clarity and sorts those who know fromthose who think they know
bad style
I would call it - inconveient for the type of individuals described by me above

..........

lightfire

02-10-2007, 08:33 PM

By expanding NATO and undermining Russia's stability in every way possible?
Expansion of NATo is not forecefull, those nations went there themselves, because they wanted.And Russia cooperated and still/yet cooperating with NATo as with a partner, at least officially/nominally, while still conciders it as a threat.

So what that nature and wishes would be?
If you look at the history, they are quite natural- expansion in various ways, but baising this not on some free values, but simple rude force and "it's mine!!" principe. That may be not a defined idoelogy, but if you want-that's a constant cource of Russia throughout its history.

So what is wrong with that?

You've pointed out like Russia has more offers to the world, well, that isin't exactlly an offer, smth progressive, or smth you'd like to folow.

When will it end?

I dunno when the oil and gas will either loose it's importance because of alternatives, or cease to exist in such quanities, but it won't be long.

As history shows - Russia never had any problems on that front, so what changed?

Russia is not investing in technologies in sufficient numbers at least to catch USA or China. Optimism in history is good, but might be not enough.

USA or the US companies that outsource their manufacturing and research facilities to the other countries?

that's part of the buisness. And yet they still invest heavily into US market.

Was true 1990 - 1997, the trend is exactly reversed now

and still is. One thing is for sure-Russia is a country of talents, however it has allready lost nearlly a generation of ones, and does not invest into the new ones sufficientlly, according to the needs of XXI century. How many have emigrated already, sold technologies or their intelect? There will be surelly others, but the gap may always be the key.

What else is there to do with them, keep 'em under the matress?
Technoloies are meant to generate income/increase wealth.

first off all, with such potential and size-adapt at home (i.e. in Russia, for I see you take it personally..). Good, if it's for science, research in key global issues, however, the ussage for domestic use is low. For ex defence industry-it's awaikening only now, and yet still under question, everything mainly goes for export.

Huge? Define huge

I don't remember exact figures, but because of emigration, diseases (AIDS for ex), crimes, other demographic factors, russian population has decreassed by millions of people. Yet, sorry, don't have exact numbers.That is absolutelly uncomparable to the EU demographic issues.

Why would some countries listen to me?

don't take it personally, I refer to Russia.

???

I meant Russias' potential in the future, what does it make atractive besides resources?

what gives you such an impression?

Under GWB administration, yes, it's not in the best shape, however the GDP, investments and sheer ecconomic strength doesn't seam to weaker.

I do not recollect any of the Soviet leaders & generals making on the record statements similar to Patton's, Ike's and Churchill's.

Sure! One Stalin and SU propoganda machine are enough for this..Yet you still claim poor SU was "forced/draged into the Cold War"?

Elaborate

appart from the POWs building stadiums and other things, appart from the GULAG camps with its' "workers" there was forced colectivisation in "liberated" teritories-nothing private.

Elaborate

appart from political murders, NKVD rampage cleaning the "enemy elements", faked "elections" you have soviet troops "gueading the peace in Europe and elswhere", soviet tanks in Budapest, Berlin, Poland, Czechoslovakia..

How did you come to that conclusion?

It has always been so. The Imperial Eagle or the red star may be dead, but the spirit remains.

Did you conduct a poll in Russia asking that question? What is your opinion based on?

As a matter of fact, many pools suggest, that majority of russians misses ol'good soviet times, when they could dictate their will and believe, that Russia should be more dominante in the world.

GazB

02-10-2007, 11:02 PM

The US has bigger problems.

And a great way to hide the fact that you don't have any solutions is to create another problem to take people minds off the fact that other problems are not getting solved... Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc etc.

Creating a problem with Russia will not improve the situation at all.

Ivan said
we have ze greatest Balistic missiles eva-Topol M, they will beat ANY defence in existance,or that would be invented-ANY!They are unchrushable,unbreakable,untrackable...but you see, this defencive shield of yours is a threat to us...Oh, and you are our firends,key partners and allies, oh, but you must leave our close border NOW..

TOPOL-M should have no problems at all defeating any air defence system... the problem is that TOPOL-M is new and the vast majority of Russian missiles are not TOPOL-Ms... or even TOPOLs.

Russia can say what they want. But they can't do nothing(in this case).

Actually they can do a lot. They have promised not to deploy nuclear weapons to Cuba but they have not promised not to deploy ABM systems there... to defend from future Brazillian ICBMs. They can also unilatarally withdraw from the INF treaty and the CFE treaty.

Well, maybe this all shows that the Cold war is not really over...

Cold war is definitely over... Cold War II???

Russia sells air-defence systems to Iran and dismisses international criticism by stating that it's a defensive system

If Russia sold Iran a complete air defence package that guaranteed the US could not successfully attack Iran, and Iran decided to use this shield to attack Iraq and Afghanistan then you might have a point. The reality is that the fighter component of Irans air defence consists of largely US aircraft (F-14s and F-4s), or US actions (Mig-29s from Iraq). Their standard medium range SAM is a HAWK, which is also American.

oh yes, mighty Estonia is now a threat to Russia, with its WMDs- Kiullamea-II balistic missiles on Russias border..Polan is a threat too, with its antibalistic shield and OMFG D3LtA!!11!! secrect nuclear ICBMs- "Pan Tadeuz-IV"...

Just like Cuba is a might threat to the US. It is enemy territory and its proximity to the homeland means that it is an ideal place to site listening devices and monitoring equipment, though the fact that it will be overwhelmed in the first hours of any aggression in either direction means it isn't really a good place to put troops (or to live).

Why most of you use 20th century point of view over strategical issues regarding new situation and new threats wich were completly impossible to predict during cold war.

Because US and Russia are still not friends. They are less enemies, more rivals than anything. Cold war II might be a business war.

North Korea and Iran have their nuke development programs. The result is that manz sunni Arab states declared to start their own. When Iran gets its first nuke the we all can forget about nondissemination of offensive nuclear weapons.

You should take the evidence of their nuclear weapon program straight to the UN and then they can do something about it... you have evidence right, or are you just assuming the US is right?
Interesting you think that Persian Iran will help Arab states get nuke weapons, even more interesting that you think Shia Iran will help Sunni states.

I'm repeting myself again: the main stage of current conflicts is Asia. It's the most politicaly unstable (except Africa) region with resources and with the biggest contrasts about level of life. There are a lot hot and latent military conflicts.

This is code for.. there is turmoil in both Africa and Asia, but lots of potential consumers in Asia makes it more of a priority economically. Poor africa... always next on the list for help.

The current range of missles is a myth. The ABM facility should be operative no sooner than 2012-15 or even later. In this time there will not be any obstacles to Iran or anyone to imcrease range of missles few times more...

And so in 15 years they will have such long range they can fire them over the south pole and bypass all of Americas ABM systems...

lol Russia is going to step on the same rake again

And the new NATO members are going to step on a new rake...
I am sure the Germans will be happy to pass on the yoke of ground zero on to you.

The same cries are giving permission to sell arms not only to the highest bidder, but some of these states have major ties to terrorist activity, illegal narcotics trafficking, and governments that threaten regional stability.

Hahahahaha... you work for the US State Department? They have been saying that for the last half century... The US and NATO are in Afghanistan... how is the poppy trade there? And one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter... the US supported the IRA happily enough.

And, they have a very comprahensive ABM net work to counter an ICBM/IRBM threat from any corner of the world.

Able to defend one city... Moscow... and hardly able to counter any threat... it will delay the inevidible long enough to ensure the command and communications hub that is moscow can operate long enough to work out the source of the attack and mount an attack on that source before it is destroyed.

Not to mention a very robust and capable nuclear strike capability, should they feel threatend enough to use it.

They will have less than a third of the weapons they had a decade and a half ago, yet the number of targets (ie NATO countries) has greatly increased...

renowness and simply because it's the most powerfull, yet Russia does not show any ideology, the world could folow. Countries folow Russia only because its gas, oil and huge market (which now becomes more and more difficult for foreign investments)

You don't get it do you? The world doesn't want the most powerful country in the world to impose its own ideology on it. We have our own ideologies and cultures and ways of doing things and we don't want some big powerful country coming in and telling us how to act and what to think.
We just want to trade and to have some stability around the place. Changing governments and bombing countries that don't do as you tell them is not promoting stability and peace. It is imposing an artificial structure that will not stand the test of time creating future instability. ie Yugosalvia.

However, there's still huge corruption, clans, smth wrong with investments.

Yeah... no corruption in the US. Holier than thou attitudes are not respected either.

I doubt they will be friends too. They weren't friends under the Tsars, they weren't friends under communism, and they aren't friends now. What do they have to do? I'll tell you. They have to become a yes man. Everything the West wants to do they should think it is a good idea. They should adapt everything to be like the west. They should start speaking english. They should buy everything from the west. And every resource that the west deems useful they should hand over without complaint and be happy about how much better off they are being second class westerners. Since that isn't going to happen, I doubt there will be friendship any time in the forseeable future. Russia has changed. The west has not. And as long as the west sees no reason to change there will be no real friendship.

KMS... keep in mind that some think that Russia is still stuck in the mid 1990s and nothing has changed.

And Russia cooperated and still/yet cooperating with NATo as with a partner, at least officially/nominally, while still conciders it as a threat.
[/quote

NATO is a military organisation. If you have been told you can sometimes hang out with someone and do the things they are doing but cannot ever be considered part of the group and can only join in in practise things then you kinda get the feeling they are just sizing you up...
If the spread of NATO promotes peace and security in Europe it would make a lot of sense to include all of Europe. The great mistake of WWI was that there were two great powerblocks so something as minor as an assassination caused a world war.
I doubt if NATO asked, that Russia would want to join, but the fact that they don't even consider such a possibility suggests Russia's mistrust is well placed.
Remember the CFE treaty is still in force and was about balancing the forces of the WP and NATO. It is now a joke.

[quote]Good, if it's for science, research in key global issues, however, the ussage for domestic use is low. For ex defence industry-it's awaikening only now, and yet still under question, everything mainly goes for export.

And I can hear the whining of things they do actually apply at home like TOPOL-M... they are poor... why are they building new ICBMs when they have starving people and poor people and corruption whine whine whine...

I meant Russias' potential in the future, what does it make atractive besides resources?

Global warming.

appart from the POWs building stadiums and other things, appart from the GULAG camps with its' "workers" there was forced colectivisation in "liberated" teritories-nothing private.

They seemed happy enough to break things in the Soviet Union, why not make POWs fix it?

The Imperial Eagle or the red star may be dead, but the spirit remains.

And what do you expect? Do you think with a democratic government they will all become like you? The West was much more imperial and colonial than Russia ever was... The UK, Spain, France, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, even the US had their little colonies. Some were taken away by force and others were allowed to leave of their own accord, but the records stand for themselves and the Wests record is much worse than Russias'.

As a matter of fact, many pools suggest, that majority of russians misses ol'good soviet times, when they could dictate their will and believe, that Russia should be more dominante in the world.

I am sure that many Iraqis would now look back to Saddams time in charge as a time of peace and law and order. Would they want to accept the loss of so called democracy so they could send their children out to school and know they wont get blown up on the way... I am sure they would. Even the strictest regime is better than chaos... if you actually have to live there.

lightfire

02-10-2007, 11:21 PM

oh man, that sucks! Screw you guys, I am going home...

will answer to this tomorow.

Switek

02-11-2007, 03:22 AM

Cold war is definitely over... Cold War II???

You should say thank you to your president for starting Cold War 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6350847.stm). that's interesting that mainly Russian mp.members use this term...

:|

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 03:58 AM

To my knowledge, Russia is still getting food assistance from the United States.

Whaaaat?! :bash:

You've just lost all credability on the subject.

Hunterhr

02-11-2007, 04:07 AM

And a great way to hide the fact that you don't have any solutions is to create another problem to take people minds off the fact that other problems are not getting solved... Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc etc.

That rush of air you hear is my point going completely over your head.

hy92

02-11-2007, 04:29 AM

Some people have a way too much free time. And, I hate commies.

koozya

02-11-2007, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by 8thidpathfinderpower http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2298758#post2298758)
To my knowledge, Russia is still getting food assistance from the United States
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
can we nominate him for an award?

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by 8thidpathfinderpower http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2298758#post2298758)
To my knowledge, Russia is still getting food assistance from the United States
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
can we nominate him for an award?

No award would be sufficient for that kind of brilliance he demonstrated.p-)

I mean, what God forsaken sh1thole one must live in to come up with such "ideas", I wonder? :roll:

GazB

02-11-2007, 04:51 AM

Some people have a way too much free time. And, I hate commies.

Yeah, I hate Mormons... but I don't dwell on that...

Hunterhr

02-11-2007, 04:53 AM

The whole "Cold War II" thing is adorable.

Switek

02-11-2007, 04:56 AM

Anyway, seems that Russia still gets some aid from US

http://russia.usaid.gov/en/main/activity/index.shtml?activity_id=664

I wonder if I ever see reverse trend ;)

sir-chimp

02-11-2007, 05:12 AM

Yeah, I hate Mormons... but I don't dwell on that...

I hate Communist and Nazis

You hate Mormons

good to go gaz - glad to see your on the rational side of things.

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 05:21 AM

Some people have a way too much free time. And, I hate commies.

Maaan, this **** is older than my socks.

Do you hate "flappers", "hippies", "yuppies" and "bootleggers" too? What age are you from? :roll:

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 05:23 AM

Anyway, seems that Russia still gets some aid from US

http://russia.usaid.gov/en/main/activity/index.shtml?activity_id=664

I wonder if I ever see reverse trend ;)

And where does you own link show any amount of aid?

You seem to be willing to throw in anything to bash Russia. That's becoming somewhat annoying, I thought you to be on a more rational side.

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 05:26 AM

I hate Communist and Nazis

.

Have you actually met a commie, or do you hate'em in advance? ;)

I think they dwell mostly in Harvard, rather than in Russia.p-)

Switek

02-11-2007, 05:30 AM

And where does you own link show any amount of aid?

You seem to be willing to throw in anything to bash Russia. That's becoming somewhat annoying, I thought you to be on a more rational side.

We are discussing about cashflow to Russia, Do you deny that Russia's got blns of $$$ and still gets???

yor reactions proves that that's embarrassing but real picture of situation in your country

sir-chimp

02-11-2007, 05:31 AM

Have you actually met a commie, or do you hate'em in advance? ;)

I think they dwell mostly in Harvard, rather than in Russia.p-)

Scum dwell a lot of places, unfortunately many have taken root in our higher education institutions. Their dirty little cockroaches who scurry for cover when the light of the real world is shined on them.

And yes I have met Nazis and Communist both - Mormons too.

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 05:36 AM

We are discussing about cashflow to Russia, Do you deny that Russia's got blns of $$$ and still gets???

The man made a point that Russia receives aid in food, you did a point that Russia receives financial aid. Now you backtrack and try to say that it was about "cashflow".

yor reactions proves that that's embarrassing but real picture of situation in your country

My reaction only goes to show that your obsession with Russia-bashing is becoming somewhat tiresome. Get a life. And learn to let it go, for Christ's sake.

I'm the last person to defend Putin and his regime here, but you managed to get the worst even of me.

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 05:37 AM

Scum dwell a lot of places, unfortunately many have taken root in our higher education institutions. Their dirty little cockroaches who scurry for cover when the light of the real world is shined on them.

You should write a book. Your wording is admirable. p-)

Switek

02-11-2007, 06:11 AM

The man made a point that Russia receives aid in food, you did a point that Russia receives financial aid. Now you backtrack and try to say that it was about "cashflow".

My reaction only goes to show that your obsession with Russia-bashing is becoming somewhat tiresome. Get a life. And learn to let it go, for Christ's sake.

I'm the last person to defend Putin and his regime here, but you managed to get the worst even of me.

I presented you facts in return I got comments...

anyway in 1990's Russia got some food aid (http://www.unece.org/ead/pub/983/boxc1.htm). Of course, now, this kind of aid, it's not necessary.

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 06:18 AM

I presented you facts in return I got comments...

no, you brushed into other people's debate, took the stupid guy's side for some reason, posted irrelevant link to make his Russia bashing look valid.

And what do you want for that? A cookie? Or is being a watchdog for all things that mention Russia is your personal hobby?

8thidpathfinderpower

02-11-2007, 06:25 AM

Whaaaat?! :bash:

You've just lost all credability on the subject.

I said to my knowledge. I do know the US was sending Russia grain shipments. As for if we still do, to my knowledge we still do. But, I will do further reasearch, and will post later today with the updated results. I how ever do apologize if there was any discrepency

As of 2006, the food aid was being disbersed to the displaced people of Chechnya. But, as an interestig side note, Russia is getting alot of aid to counter rising tubercliousis, HIV/AIDS, and the declining heatth of the male population. But, Russia does still get some types of food assistance from the US.

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 06:31 AM

I said to my knowledge.

Then your knowledge is very limited, to say the least. That devalues all you have to say on the subject.

In fact, after your brilliant demonstration of complete ignorance, I won't even bother to read your posts any longer.

Switek

02-11-2007, 06:40 AM

no, you brushed into other people's debate, took the stupid guy's side for some reason, posted irrelevant link to make his Russia bashing look valid.

And what do you want for that? A cookie? Or is being a watchdog for all things that mention Russia is your personal hobby?

It's an open forum I do not violate any rules and keep personal respect toward you... And do not use any invectives. Seems that you're a person with emotional problems if you use such offensive language... Improve your style.

And you did not comment facts (link below) about wide stream of financial aid made by US and many peple to whom Russia is important partner in the future.

kosse

02-11-2007, 06:50 AM

While I do not know if USDA food aid program is still running it certainly has in the early 2000's.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9909/29/russia.us.food.01/

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 06:55 AM

It's an open forum I do not violate any rules and keep personal respect toward you... And do not use any invectives. Seems that you're a person with emotional problems if you use such offensive language... Improve your style.

Why, thank you for this advice. I definitely will. :roll:

And you did not comment facts (link below) about wide stream of financial aid made by US and many peple to whom Russia is important partner in the future.

I think, I already commented on this by calling your link "irrelevant" to the issue at hand. What else is there to say?

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 06:56 AM

While I do not know if USDA food aid program is still running it certainly has in the early 2000's.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9909/29/russia.us.food.01/

Noone is denying it did.

I laughed at the dude, who stated that it still continues. And then Switek appeared as usual and posted some irrelevant link.

8thidpathfinderpower

02-11-2007, 07:06 AM

no, you brushed into other people's debate, took the stupid guy's side for some reason, posted irrelevant link to make his Russia bashing look valid.

And what do you want for that? A cookie? Or is being a watchdog for all things that mention Russia is your personal hobby?

As I said before, there my insulting friend, I did not want to get into a debate where it winds up a "my country is better than yours" pissing match, but unfortunatly it did.

The fact remains Russia does get still some type of humanitarian assistance from the United States, in one form or another. This aid, along with other humanitarian aid, goes to the Russian government to combat rising cases of drug resistant forms of TB, to provide education on HIV/AIDS, and to help counter the declining health of the male Russian population. And, there is food, sanitation, and healthcare aid being provided to mainly help the displaced people of Chechnya.

Now, my ignorant, biased, narrow minded blow hard friend, I have read your posts, and I will nominate you for the MP.net DAOTW award. Before you go spouting off agin, please take the time to back up what you are spouting of about.

Switek

02-11-2007, 07:10 AM

...
I think, I already commented on this by calling your link "irrelevant" to the issue at hand. What else is there to say?

Irrelevant about food aid, but not for an aid, at all. From me the way of aid is a secondary matter. The key is that taht it's Russia which gets it.

From one hand, big international ambitions, from other reality as usual... and this thread title...

Don't you think that Russia should say, thank you, first? Not critcise its benefactors?

8thidpathfinderpower

02-11-2007, 07:13 AM

Then your knowledge is very limited, to say the least. That devalues all you have to say on the subject.

In fact, after your brilliant demonstration of complete ignorance, I won't even bother to read your posts any longer.

Thank the lord for that!!!!!!! Hallilouia!!!!!!:)

KMS

02-11-2007, 12:46 PM

Anyway, seems that Russia still gets some aid from US

http://russia.usaid.gov/en/main/activity/index.shtml?activity_id=664

Aid? I do not see any aid in there.
There are fundings for the joint programs, projects and NGOs, where do you see aid?

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 12:47 PM

Aid? I do not see any aid in there.
There are fundings for the joint programs, projects and NGOs, where do you see aid?

Don't bother. The man is on the mission, can't you see? I already tried to talk some sense into him - didn't help.

KMS

02-11-2007, 01:03 PM

While I do not know if USDA food aid program is still running it certainly has in the early 2000's.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9909/29/russia.us.food.01/

massive food aid package last winter after Russia suffered its worst harvest in 40 years. The country's food supply was also hurt after Moscow devalued the ruble in August 1998, making food imports extremely expensive. The package negotiated by Washington included some direct donations as well as low-interest, long-term loans for Russia to buy U.S. grain and meat.
American farmers were more than willing to sell grain and meat to Russia to help boost sagging U.S. commodity prices. Prices for most grain and livestock plummeted last year as huge worldwide supplies and declining export demand from Asia weighed on U.S. farm prices.

Who aided whom?

Aid, in my understanding, is when someone gives you something with no strings attached.
So what do we have here:

1. Russia has a very bad winter in 1998 that produces the worst harvest in 40 years so it has to go and buy outside the country not to dig into is strategic reserves. What is wrong with that? What would US or any other country doin the similar situation?

2. US gets to make profit from providing/financing the loan.

3. US governmet besides making money on the loan also gets to save money that otherwise would have to spend to bail out its farmes.

4. US farmers are happy because they can afford to pay their bills for couple more month...

So who helped who? Russia could have gone to several other countries to buy the grain.

If one to throw away creative journalism bs out of that article, the thesis of this article is " American farmers were more than willing to sell grain and meat to Russia to help boost sagging U.S. commodity prices."

Switek

02-11-2007, 01:07 PM

Aid? I do not see any aid in there.
There are fundings for the joint programs, projects and NGOs, where do you see aid?
:cantbeli:

Funded by American taxpayers... oh, come on... what is in your opinion? A loan, leasing?

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 01:13 PM

Excellent. He has no idea where the funds go, but he is ALREADY sure that its aid even before he checks. Nice indoctrination there.

Mr. Poland, facts don't need "opinions", facts are facts. They speak for themselves. While right now, you speak for them.

As I've said before, get a life. Or a job. Or something to keep you busy other than Russia. We'll manage. And the world will too.

Switek

02-11-2007, 01:17 PM

Excellent. He has no idea where the funds go, but he is ALREADY sure that its aid even before he checks. Nice indoctrination there.

Mr. Poland, facts don't need "opinions", facts are facts. They speak for themselves. While right now, you speak for them.

As I've said before, get a life. Or a job. Or something to keep you busy other than Russia. We'll manage. And the world will too.
:cantbeli:

you really have a problem with yourself... cant't you resist from insulting behaviour and simply shut up?

:|

KMS

02-11-2007, 01:26 PM

Don't bother. The man is on the mission, can't you see? I already tried to talk some sense into him - didn't help.

You right, I should know better.
It just amazes me that there are so many people sitting somewhere in the middle of the rural Idaho and likes, who never ventured out of their towns with population of 2400 and have no clue about the outside world, other countries' histories, cultures, social innerworkings and such, but still refuse to learn and listen. They are 100% sure that they can't be wrong because their info/world view comes from the uncle Bob - smartest man in town and the only one with the front teeth and not married to his sister and even! has been to a State fair once...

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 01:26 PM

:cantbeli:

you really have a problem with yourself... cant't you resist from insulting behaviour and simply shut up?

:|

My problem is you and your attitude. Try to shut up yourself for once and don't play the "mister know it all" part.

Funded by American taxpayers...?
So what? Every US government project/venture investmet is funded by the American taxpayers.

And what would you call the money that US government has to borrow every year from Chinese and SA taxpayers to even attempt make ends meet?

Doublethinker

02-11-2007, 01:58 PM

Switek,
nothing else but more *****ing and moaning, moaning and *****ing. Do you have a girlfriend?

I think, such kind of zealousness should be put to a better use - like, say, improving demography ;)

Switek

02-11-2007, 02:02 PM

So what? Every US government project/venture investmet is funded by the American taxpayers.

And what would you call the money that US government has to borrow every year from Chinese and SA taxpayers to even attempt make ends meet?

Do we discuss here from the money goes from? Anyway sooner or later for any borrowing pay taxpayers...

The most important is where those money go... So it's a problem for to admit that Russia use that money to realize some social purposes?

KMS

02-11-2007, 02:40 PM

The most important is where those money go... So it's a problem for to admit that Russia use that money to realize some social purposes?

Yes, it is a problem because it is not true.
The difference is that US government sponsors specific projects in Russia that serve the US interests and no US money goes into the Russian budget while the US has to borrow several hundred thousand billion dollars every year to make up the budget deficit.
Do you understand the difference?

Switek

02-11-2007, 02:48 PM

...while the US has to borrow several hundred thousand billion dollars every year to make up the budget deficit.
Do you understand the difference?

US budget deficit is US government problem.

Yes, it is a problem because it is not true.
The difference is that US government sponsors specific projects in Russia that serve the US interests and no US money goes into the Russian budget ...

What are you talking about? (http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/countries/ru/index.html)
:cantbeli:

sir-chimp

02-11-2007, 02:55 PM

http://www.usda.gov/news/special/ctc12.htm

But, first, let me say a few things about the food aid package itself. As negotiated, the final package totals 3.2 million tons of U.S. commodities valued at $1.0 billion, including transportation costs. We are donating more than half the aid, and Russia is purchasing more than 1 million tons under P.L. 480, Title I.

Hmm half a billion in food aid funded by the American tax payers

http://www.redcross.org/news/in/siberia/020408food.html

The American Red Cross distribution -- completed with the assistance of the Russian Red Cross -- became the organization's largest feeding project worldwide. The program, once valued at $15.5 million with support from the United States Department of Agriculture, has helped supplement a nutritional diet for nearly 2 million elderly, disabled, institutionalized, orphaned and needy people throughout Eastern Siberia over the past three years

you kiddys really should thanks mommy and daddy for moving to the west.

Flamming_Python

02-11-2007, 03:05 PM

The same rake that smacked them in the face the first time.

And which rake is that? You still haven't answered the question beyond the level of vague sensationalist statements.

And, they have a very comprahensive ABM net work to counter an ICBM/IRBM threat from any corner of the world. Not to mention a very robust and capable nuclear strike capability, should they feel threatend enough to use it.

Strange I never heard about this mysterious ABM network. There is of course the small-scale ABM around Moscow which was built 30-40 years ago. It's operational, but it won't do so well against modern ICMBs with mutliple warheads, not to even mention protecting the 93% or so of the Russian population that does NOT live in Moscow.

KMS

02-11-2007, 03:06 PM

What are you talking about? (http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/countries/ru/index.html)
:cantbeli:

Looked through your link

More than one thousand people attended “Cinema Against AIDS,” hosted by ten United Nations

On November 18, the American International Health Alliance (AIHA) and the St. Petersburg Medical Academy for Post Graduate Studies (MAPS) opened an AIDS Education and Training Center (AETC) in St. Petersburg.

On August 30, the Primorskiy Kray administration and local NGOs, including the USAID-funded Path to Success! program partners, combined forces to host the “STOP Trafficking" Asia-Pacific International Forum

the World Health Organization (WHO) provided computers, office and training equipment, conference and library room furniture to MoH centers in Grozny and Nazran.

From May 23-25, 2006, USAID-supported Internews Russia, the National Association of Tele-Broadcasters, and the Alliance of Regional Media Executives hosted “Time to Act”, a festival of regional journalism in Moscow..

And plenty more similar to those mentioned above.
All that I see are private or government sponsored US and international organizations helping/working together with their Russian counterparts.
Where does it says that Russian government asked US government for money, equipment and such?

The difference is that Russian budget/Russia doesn't need any help to make it, US does...

Ok, lets simplify: I (Russia) do not need money from my parents/friends to make it but if they give me clothing, computer, etc. - I will take it and say thank you.
On the other hand my brother (US) constantly has to ask his parents and friends for money to be able to afford clothing, food and rent.
Do you get it now?

Switek

02-11-2007, 03:21 PM

....

The difference is that Russian budget/Russia doesn't need any help to make it, US does...

Ok, lets simplify: I (Russia) do not need money from my parents/friends to make it but if they give me clothing, computer, etc. - I will take it and say thank you.
On the other hand my brother (US) constantly has to ask his parents and friends for money to be able to afford clothing, food and rent.
Do you get it now?

Besides the level of budget debt (what in US and in many the most developed countries normal thing and do not make threat for further development) do you see a difference?

Nothing new there Switek. Everyone is aware that the US economy is the biggest in the world. They have more than twice the population of Russia and their economy is many times bigger than Russia's.

What you forgot to mention is that, for the last few years, Russia's economy (and GDP) is growing 3 times faster than the mean growth rate of the European Union and at least twice as fast as the US economy.

And please don't say its because of high oil/gas prices. Yes, the high energy prices helped their economy a bit, but most of the oil revenue (anything above $23 / barrel) is not going into the economy (its going straight into the "stabilization fund"). That fund has now more than 100 billion $$. Russia also paid off its debts to the "Paris club" lately.

In short 21st century Russia is waaay different from the Russia of the 90s. Its in much better shape and improving very fast.

Switek

02-11-2007, 03:42 PM

Nothing new there Switek. Everyone is aware that the US economy is the biggest in the world. They have more than twice the population of Russia and their economy is many times bigger than Russia's.

What you forgot to mention is that, for the last few years, Russia's economy (and GDP) is growing 3 times faster than the mean growth rate of the European Union and at least twice as fast as the US economy.

And please don't say its because of high oil/gas prices. Yes, the high energy prices helped their economy a bit, but most of the oil revenue (anything above $23 / barrel) is not going into the economy (its going straight into the "stabilization fund"). That fund has now more than 100 billion $$. Russia also paid off its debts to the "Paris club" lately.

In short 21st century Russia is waaay different from the Russia of the 90s. Its in much better shape and improving very fast.

I know, you know, everybody knows...

These achievements, along with a renewed government effort to advance structural reforms and fiscal restraint, have raised business and investor confidence in Russia's economic prospects. Russia's economy grew 6.6% in 2006 and inflation growth was below 10% for the first time in the past 10 years. Russia shows signs of increasing its ties to the global economy, having signed a bilateral market access agreement with the US as a prelude to possible WTO entry. Nevertheless, serious problems persist. Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80% of exports, leaving the country vulnerable to swings in world commodity prices. Russia's manufacturing base is dilapidated and must be replaced or modernized if the country is to achieve broad-based economic growth. The banking system, while growing at a high rate and increasing consumer lending, is still small relative to the banking sectors of Russia's emerging market peers. Domestic and foreign investor sentiment is tempered by political uncertainties ahead of elections, corruption, and widespread lack of trust in institutions.

I'm sick to constantly prove that Earth is a sphere

KMS

02-11-2007, 03:56 PM

Simply you don't get it...

I don't get what?

Switek

02-11-2007, 04:03 PM

I don't get what?

what's a difference between US and Russian economy and why US can afford itself to have Public debt: 64.7% of GDP ...

You replace economical terms with propaganda argument...

this dispute goes nowhere

TheArmenian

02-11-2007, 04:04 PM

I'm sick to constantly prove that Earth is a sphere

Dammm... I always believed that the shortest distance between two points was a straight line p-)

Switek

02-11-2007, 04:08 PM

Dammm... I always believed that the shortest distance between two points was a straight line p-)

Not according quantum phisics, ;)

TheArmenian

02-11-2007, 04:17 PM

Not according quantum phisics, ;)

You mean phisix, physics or fisikz ?
;)

Switek

02-11-2007, 04:20 PM

You mean phisix, physics or fisikz ?
;)

My bad,

second attempt: the right answer is b: physics... p-)

RBull

02-11-2007, 04:25 PM

Even the strictest regime is better than chaos... if you actually have to live there.

There is definitely some sense to it. All the "democracy vs dictatoship" things aside, the "if you actually have to live there" sentence nails it.

It is evident from way too many spots around the globe, that living conditions of some "freed" nations deteriorated beyond an imaginable scale and it does not have anything to do with democracy.

Serious time to rebuild the UN and give it back its lost credit.

KMS

02-11-2007, 04:33 PM

what's a difference between US and Russian economy and why US can afford itself to have Public debt: 64.7% of GDP ...

The common sense dictates less debt - the better, but I guess if you really want to prove your point then "common sense" could be forsaken.

In case you didn't know, the average American has negative savings rating: he owes more than he has.
An average American can't even make it paycheck to paycheck without using ccards.
US is owned by foreign banks, governments and investments, Russia is owned by Russia.

If present day US was financially sound it wouldn't have to ask for money and would have a budget surpluse, simple like that.

Switek

02-11-2007, 04:47 PM

The common sense dictates less debt - the better, but I guess if you really want to prove your point then "common sense" could be forsaken.

In case you didn't know, the average American has negative savings rating: he owes more than he has.
An average American can't even make it paycheck to paycheck without using ccards.
US is owned by foreign banks, governments and investments, Russia is owned by Russia.

If present day US was financially sound it wouldn't have to ask for money and would have a budget surpluse, simple like that.

Oh noooo. It to simple to be the truth. In capitalist ceconomy that's a norm taht you take loans and there is some regularity as much wealthy is society than private debts rate is higher.

KMS

02-11-2007, 04:59 PM

Oh noooo. It to simple to be the truth. In capitalist ceconomy that's a norm taht you take loans and there is some regularity as much wealthy is society than private debts rate is higher.

I absolutely agree with the stated above.

But would you agree that having to borrow every year larger and large amounts of money from foreign governments just to keep country going is hardly a sign of a healthy economy?

Switek

02-11-2007, 05:17 PM

I absolutely agree with the stated above.

But would you agree that having to borrow every year larger and large amounts of money from foreign governments just to keep country going is hardly a sign of a healthy economy?

During economical recession, crisis sometimes is inevitable to loan money. But there is some misunderstanding in your post. In democratic countries the guard of national curency is independent Central Bank who can borrow money to different institutions (after governmental approval and its guarantee) which can subside the loaner.

Smersh

02-11-2007, 07:33 PM

These Russian themed threads are really starting to give me a head-ache! There seems to be a new one every other day, covering pretty much the same exact topics, no matter what the orginal topic was. Same group of people repeating the same things that where discredited a dozen threads ago, and in every other Russian themed thread.

Bottome line in these threads ,from one side, is that the USA is the best and most moral country on the planet, and Russia is the worst and most evil.

Flamming_Python

02-11-2007, 11:58 PM

These Russian themed threads are really starting to give me a head-ache! There seems to be a new one every other day, covering pretty much the same exact topics, no matter what the orginal topic was. Same group of people repeating the same things that where discredited a dozen threads ago, and in every other Russian themed thread.

Bottome line in these threads ,from one side, is that the USA is the best and most moral country on the planet, and Russia is the worst and most evil.

Yep, although our crew does give a good fight, we are simply too indoctrinated by the School system or Putin's media propaganda or whatever to understand the TRUTH

Switek

02-12-2007, 05:25 AM

These Russian themed threads are really starting to give me a head-ache! There seems to be a new one every other day, covering pretty much the same exact topics, no matter what the orginal topic was. Same group of people repeating the same things that where discredited a dozen threads ago, and in every other Russian themed thread.

Bottome line in these threads ,from one side, is that the USA is the best and most moral country on the planet, and Russia is the worst and most evil.

Why, most Russian mp.netters do use term "evil" regarding Russia? There is a lot criticis toward US but on mp.net. But this concenrns individual actions made by this country. The problem with Russia is simple. It criticizes the west but do not offers anything in return. Putin who is obviously gaging the democracy and development of citizen society in Russia, sounds ambigous and funny when start criticize western democracy.

Democracy, free market is not stated phase of development there are always are some problems with them, but democracy is a continous process. Western democracy was different in 19th, throughout 20th centuries and nowdays.

Your statement about that all threads regarding Russia-NATO/US/west/or something else are going to the same points. And I find this interesting why it happens? For me it prooves the deep division between Rusian and the rest of the world perception of current political reality...

And one personal remark: Poles and Russians are very similar to each other. We represent similar mentality and temperament. This why we dare to speak with you openly, bluntly. This why, I guess we are recognized by some Russian mp.netters as a truoble makers.

Flamming_Python

02-12-2007, 10:45 AM

Why, most Russian mp.netters do use term "evil" regarding Russia? There is a lot criticis toward US but on mp.net. But this concenrns individual actions made by this country. The problem with Russia is simple. It criticizes the west but do not offers anything in return. Putin who is obviously gaging the democracy and development of citizen society in Russia, sounds ambigous and funny when start criticize western democracy.

Democracy, free market is not stated phase of development there are always are some problems with them, but democracy is a continous process. Western democracy was different in 19th, throughout 20th centuries and nowdays.

Your statement about that all threads regarding Russia-NATO/US/west/or something else are going to the same points. And I find this interesting why it happens? For me it prooves the deep division between Rusian and the rest of the world perception of current political reality...

And one personal remark: Poles and Russians are very similar to each other. We represent similar mentality and temperament. This why we dare to speak with you openly, bluntly. This why, I guess we are recognized by some Russian mp.netters as a truoble makers.

I think you're missing something. Russia hasn't critisized the US itself and its society, as that would be pretty hypocritical and stupid. Rather people are complaining about US foreign policy, which is their right.

You speak against us openly, which is good, but we are NOT some dark tyranical force trying to opress you, we simply don't believe you :) ,

If you want to know what aggrevates me, it's that for whatever reason Polish opinions about Russia seem to have more weight in some places (e.g. Western Media) than Russian opinions about Russia.

I also don't believe that I attack Poland's domestic policy or critisise the way you guys run your country (apart from when it relates to Russia). That goes for most Russians here. We are mostly on the defensive. But you're right, we are similar in very many ways, and that's what probably leads to these huge internet brawls p-)

Switek, you have your opinions about Putin, yet I know many things that you don't perhaps, and so I have good reasons for believing that Putin is in fact helping civil society and democracy in Russia.

But assuming that he is destroying it, there would hardly be left anything to destroy anyway, as Yeltsin's 90's was not particularly democratic, contrary to popular belief. I point to Yeltsin ordering tanks to shell the Duma in '93 when the politicians complained the president had too much power, the bankers conference of '95, the cancelling of the '94 elections, etc...

Really we gotta turn down the rhetoric between us, Switek, because at the rate we're going, you'll turn into Drunkensquid and i'll transform into nick_UA.

Switek

02-12-2007, 11:40 AM

@ Flamming_Python

I've made new thread (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=104955) to dicuss our common "wounds"

Musashi

02-12-2007, 12:19 PM

It's clear to understand Vladimir Vladimirovich's intentions in Poland.
That man talk to Russians, he will make an important country from Russia, that voice will be considered. He is upset when nobody takes care of him.
He was angry when Poland was joining NATO, then EU and now is angry about our great plans of building the shield.
Since:
a) the American AD missiles are unable to intercept new Russian ICBMs (Topol-Ms)
b) all people, whose IQ >=100 know, Russia is capable of attacking the USA with ICBMs through the North Pole and Far East (MUCH SHORTER WAY!!!)
it's highest time to ask a basic question: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
The only logic answer is Vladimir Vladimirovich can't reconcile Poland and Central Europe is not in his sphere of influences anymore and just that makes him so upset. According to a Russian proverb Kuritsa ne p****a, Polsha ne zagranitsa (hen is not a bird, Poland is not a foreign country) there is no other explanation and it's clearly visible in Vladimir Vladimirovich's behaviour.

Xtoisè

02-12-2007, 12:31 PM

It's clear to understand Vladimir Vladimirovich's intentions in Poland.
That man talk to Russians, he will make an important country from Russia, that voice will be considered. He is upset when nobody takes care of him.
He was angry when Poland was joining NATO, then EU and now is angry about our great plans of building the shield.
Since:
a) the American AD missiles are unable to intercept new Russian ICBMs (Topol-Ms)
b) all people, whose IQ >=100 know, Russia is capable of attacking the USA with ICBMs through the North Pole and Far East (MUCH SHORTER WAY!!!)
it's highest time to ask a basic question: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
The only logic answer is Vladimir Vladimirovich can't reconcile Poland and Central Europe is not in his sphere of influences anymore and just that makes him so upset. According to a Russian proverb Kuritsa ne p****a, Polsha ne zagranitsa (hen is not a bird, Poland is not a foreign country) there is no other explanation and it's clearly visible in Vladimir Vladimirovich's behaviour.

i dont think he cares of acquiring Poland. CIS countries yes, but not Poland.

8thidpathfinderpower

02-12-2007, 06:18 PM

You right, I should know better.
It just amazes me that there are so many people sitting somewhere in the middle of the rural Idaho and likes, who never ventured out of their towns with population of 2400 and have no clue about the outside world, other countries' histories, cultures, social innerworkings and such, but still refuse to learn and listen. They are 100% sure that they can't be wrong because their info/world view comes from the uncle Bob - smartest man in town and the only one with the front teeth and not married to his sister and even! has been to a State fair once...

Wow...what can I say....is it like that where you live? Or, is it that you are just jelous about where some people live....

Now...if you have to start refering to a stereotyping of yourself and the local area that you live in, may I suggest moving to a big city somewhere, going to a college, and furthering your education. OR....joining the military and traveling the world, or joing a band of merry pirates and sailing the 7 seas...or better yet, stop insulting yourself.

Flamming_Python

02-12-2007, 07:22 PM

It's clear to understand Vladimir Vladimirovich's intentions in Poland.
That man talk to Russians, he will make an important country from Russia, that voice will be considered. He is upset when nobody takes care of him.
He was angry when Poland was joining NATO, then EU and now is angry about our great plans of building the shield.
Since:
a) the American AD missiles are unable to intercept new Russian ICBMs (Topol-Ms)
b) all people, whose IQ >=100 know, Russia is capable of attacking the USA with ICBMs through the North Pole and Far East (MUCH SHORTER WAY!!!)
it's highest time to ask a basic question: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
The only logic answer is Vladimir Vladimirovich can't reconcile Poland and Central Europe is not in his sphere of influences anymore and just that makes him so upset. According to a Russian proverb Kuritsa ne p****a, Polsha ne zagranitsa (hen is not a bird, Poland is not a foreign country) there is no other explanation and it's clearly visible in Vladimir Vladimirovich's behaviour.

No that's not the way it works. All decisions in Russia are guided by pragmatism (or corruption). Huge business and political decisions that affect millions of people and threaten to start Cold War II are not done because some guy in the Kremlin had a temper tantrum. Clearly you don't know much about political systems and how they operate.

In fact politicians rarely use their emotions so much nowadays. You think there is some deep Russian rage burning at the fact we lost Poland, lol...

What is more relevent, is that Russia has strategic interests in Central Europe that could potentially make it $$$ and security. USA has the same interests, as does the EU. All 3 feed great words to their people like "security" in Russia's case, "freedom" in America's, etc... But in this case Russia is not being expansive, the West is. Russia is being severely threatened by this missile shield and is facing a major loss of leverage. It would be stupid to think that Russia would do nothing, but what will happen by the end of this whole silly episode is that the world will become an even less safe place.

But of course according to you, Poland, the saviour of Western civilization has made "Vladimir Vladimirovich", a man who almost never emphasises any negative emotions in public, to lose his cool completely and go on to screw his own country up. Yeah whatever.

Musashi

02-13-2007, 06:37 PM

But could you explain me the motives?
1) The shield would not be capable of intercepting latest Russian missiles.
2) You can attack the USA through the North Pole or Far East.
And now try to explain me what has Poland to that and where is logic in that anxiety.

asch

02-13-2007, 07:12 PM

That man talk to Russians, he will make an important country from Russia, that voice will be considered. He is upset when nobody takes care of him.
He was angry when Poland was joining NATO, then EU and now is angry about our great plans of building the shield.
that talk is just childish, you know?

RomanS

02-13-2007, 08:14 PM

Switek needs to throw his 02 cents into every Russian related thread ahahahahahaha

Now thats what I call a LOYAL CUSTOMER

sir-chimp

02-13-2007, 09:12 PM

Switek needs to throw his 02 cents into every Russian related thread ahahahahahaha

But could you explain me the motives?
1) The shield would not be capable of intercepting latest Russian missiles.
2) You can attack the USA through the North Pole or Far East.
And now try to explain me what has Poland to that and where is logic in that anxiety.

Correction a missile shield positioned in the US is not capable of intercepting the latest Russian missiles. Missiles in Poland could intercept missiles in their launch phase when they have all of their warheads together in a single bus.
Second those TOPOL-Ms still represent a small fraction of the Russian arsenal.

Attacking just the US would not keep Russia safe from retaliation. Due to its ties in NATO Britain and France would be obliged to attack Russia with their nuclear missiles, so therefore Russia would be obliged to attack NATO countries in the event of attacking the US. Poland is the ideal place to intercept missiles travelling from Russia to NATO countries.

There is no actual limit on the number of ABM sites the US can deploy, or the number of missiles deployed to those sites. There are no agreements limiting the number of sites or the number of missiles at each site and there are no verification protocols that allow the Russians to verify whether there are ten interceptors in poland or 100 interceptors. Once built the radars and management systems would be the most important component with additional interceptors easy to add.

rrin

02-24-2007, 01:29 AM

Correction a missile shield positioned in the US is not capable of intercepting the latest Russian missiles.

Actually they are.

Missiles in Poland could intercept missiles in their launch phase when they have all of their warheads together in a single bus.
Second those TOPOL-Ms still represent a small fraction of the Russian arsenal.

Not true. They would be in a very poor position for such an attempt. And even if they WERE 100% effective you're talking ten missiles down out of hundreds not to mention all the SLBMs.

There is no actual limit on the number of ABM sites the US can deploy, or the number of missiles deployed to those sites. There are no agreements limiting the number of sites or the number of missiles at each site and there are no verification protocols that allow the Russians to verify whether there are ten interceptors in poland or 100 interceptors.

There's this invention called a recon satellite... :roll:

Smersh

02-24-2007, 01:37 AM

There's this invention called a recon satellite...

So Russia now needs to resort to Cold-War-era methods of finding out information about "enemy" capabilities. I wrote "enemy" because thats the method of finding information from an enemy and not a freindly nation.

Is this the road you advise nations to take?

rrin

02-24-2007, 08:56 AM

So Russia now needs to resort to Cold-War-era methods of finding out information about "enemy" capabilities. I wrote "enemy" because thats the method of finding information from an enemy and not a freindly nation.

Is this the road you advise nations to take?

I'm sure the US would be happy to let them take a look around on foot. Garry was just saying it would be impossible for Russia to determine the numbers. I was giving a way to do it. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-25-2007, 01:24 PM

Actually they are.

So US ABMS is a direct responce to latest TOPOL'-Ms? 10 abm vs 10 Topol' seems like a good trade off.

There's this invention called a recon satellite... :roll:
And they are still having trouble with calculating how many rockets North Korea has.

Lt-Col A. Tack

02-25-2007, 01:38 PM

So US ABMS is a direct responce to latest TOPOL'-Ms? No

And they are still having trouble with calculating how many rockets North Korea has.Oh really, I thought we having trouble with determining whether NK actually has the bomb. Not in counting their rockets.

rrin

02-25-2007, 03:22 PM

So US ABMS is a direct responce to latest TOPOL'-Ms? 10 abm vs 10 Topol' seems like a good trade off.

Where did I say that? All I said is that the GBI is perfectly capable of shooting down one of these so-called wonder Topols. (Funny thing is the supposed scramjet powered maneuvering thing that the Russian fanboys like to brag about has never even flown on a Topol rofl rofl It was tested - once, on an SS-19)

Smersh

02-25-2007, 04:51 PM

Instead of arguing over missiles and defense systems, lets get to the bottom line:

West very good, Russia very bad

Switek

02-25-2007, 05:32 PM

Instead of arguing over missiles and defense systems, lets get to the bottom line:

West very good, Russia very bad

The appropriate question for bottom line is why te fuk does Russia despise western sysytem of values... ? :|

Mamont

02-25-2007, 07:05 PM

The appropriate question for bottom line is why te fuk does Russia despise western sysytem of values... ? :|

And again you say twisted things, Switek. To be correct without any accusations the question must be - why should Russia accept western values?

rrin

02-25-2007, 07:12 PM

Instead of arguing over missiles and defense systems, lets get to the bottom line:

West very good, Russia very bad

Nobody is saying Russia is bad. However it is idiocy to suggest that nuclear offensive missiles are the equivalent of defensive missiles that don't even have exploding warheads.

Smersh

02-25-2007, 07:27 PM

nuclear missiles are defensive weapons if you use them in a defensive way i.e as a deterent and to counter-attack in self defense

just as a defensive system can be used offensively if its used in an offensive way. ex: you can attack on advesary with your own missiles while being protected by a missile shield from enemy counter attacks.

I'm not saying the system being put in poland and czech republic is capable of that, but in a theoritical level. all weapons are both defensive and offensive.

edit:hey at least you guys aren't continuing the american line that this missile defense system is meant to stop terrorism anymore and accept it has an anti-russian element. I think thats progress

rrin

02-25-2007, 09:22 PM

nuclear missiles are defensive weapons if you use them in a defensive way i.e as a deterent and to counter-attack in self defense

just as a defensive system can be used offensively if its used in an offensive way. ex: you can attack on advesary with your own missiles while being protected by a missile shield from enemy counter attacks.

I'm not saying the system being put in poland and czech republic is capable of that, but in a theoritical level. all weapons are both defensive and offensive.

edit:hey at least you guys aren't continuing the american line that this missile defense system is meant to stop terrorism anymore and accept it has an anti-russian element. I think thats progress

Talk about seeing what you want to see :roll: Who ever said it was to fight terrorism? The ABMs in AK are to defend against something from NK and the ones in Poland are to defend against any developements from Iran. This isn't brain surgery you know but I swear half the comments on the subject have an IQ of 15 behind them.

Mamont

02-25-2007, 09:34 PM

Talk about seeing what you want to see :roll: Who ever said it was to fight terrorism? The ABMs in AK are to defend against something from NK and the ones in Poland are to defend against any developements from Iran. This isn't brain surgery you know but I swear half the comments on the subject have an IQ of 15 behind them.

And that's one of them. I think it's way more possible that some martians will attack US, than Iran or NK. At least US have already reviewed so many scenarious of such attacks, that people are ready for them.

I'd like to see at least one clear and trustworthy reason for the Iran or NK to attack US with one or two nuclear missiles.

Smersh

02-25-2007, 10:10 PM

Putting an ABM in Turkey seems a much more logical place to stop an (very highly unlikely) nuclear missile attack from Iran. Any realistic person would see that a possible attack from Iran would most likely be a terrorist type one, and not a conventional missile. Which is again highly unlikely.

No matter what american officials say they are puting ABMs in Poland and Czech Republic for, If you don't see a clearly anti-russian element in this whole debate, your not seeing reality. Its an effort buy politicians in Poland and Czechoslavkia to thumb their nose at Russia (against popular will), while at the same time todying to the USA, their new "big daddy"

I don't exaclty see what your trying to defend, sferrin?

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-25-2007, 10:22 PM

Where did I say that? All I said is that the GBI is perfectly capable of shooting down one of these so-called wonder Topols. (Funny thing is the supposed scramjet powered maneuvering thing that the Russian fanboys like to brag about has never even flown on a Topol rofl rofl It was tested - once, on an SS-19)

Why spend money on a system that is capable of shooting down latest Topol's when you can have a moderate system to deter a possible "stone age" launch from Iran or NK?

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-25-2007, 10:24 PM

No
Oh really, I thought we having trouble with determining whether NK actually has the bomb. Not in counting their rockets.

Yes really. You also have trouble with literacy in your country, and obesity, and mental disorders, and oligarchy, but none of these will be detectable by stattelites.

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-25-2007, 10:26 PM

The appropriate question for bottom line is why te fuk does Russia despise western sysytem of values... ? :|

Why does Poland think that this missile shield is good for it?

Smersh

02-25-2007, 10:32 PM

Why does Poland think that this missile shield is good for it?

thats a very good question but should be rephrased, why do Polish and czech politicians think a missile shield is good for them? because again most people in those countries don't want it.

rrin

02-25-2007, 11:25 PM

And that's one of them. I think it's way more possible that some martians will attack US, than Iran or NK. At least US have already reviewed so many scenarious of such attacks, that people are ready for them.

I'd like to see at least one clear and trustworthy reason for the Iran or NK to attack US with one or two nuclear missiles.

Ah, the good old "let's wait until they have ICBMs before we do anything to counter them" strategy. :roll: As anyone who knows how to read is aware, missile defense is difficult stuff and is going to take a LOT of work to get all the kinks worked out. If the US waited until the threat was deployed it would be about 15 years too late. But hey good strategy there :roll:

rrin

02-25-2007, 11:26 PM

Putting an ABM in Turkey seems a much more logical place to stop an (very highly unlikely) nuclear missile attack from Iran. Any realistic person would see that a possible attack from Iran would most likely be a terrorist type one, and not a conventional missile. Which is again highly unlikely.

No matter what american officials say they are puting ABMs in Poland and Czech Republic for, If you don't see a clearly anti-russian element in this whole debate, your not seeing reality. Its an effort buy politicians in Poland and Czechoslavkia to thumb their nose at Russia (against popular will), while at the same time todying to the USA, their new "big daddy"

I don't exaclty see what your trying to defend, sferrin?

Speaking of not seeing reality, explain how TEN ABMs are going to have any effect at all on Russia's ability to launch a devistating nuclear attack.

Xtoisè

02-25-2007, 11:29 PM

Speaking of not seeing reality, explain how TEN ABMs are going to have any effect at all on Russia's ability to launch a devistating nuclear attack.

Will the devastating attack include latest Topol's?

rrin

02-25-2007, 11:29 PM

Why spend money on a system that is capable of shooting down latest Topol's when you can have a moderate system to deter a possible "stone age" launch from Iran or NK?

If it can kill an Iranian POS ICBM it can kill a Topol. Why? Because the so-called wonder weapon only manuevers in the atmosphere. GBI makes it's kill in space where Topol is a ballistic missile just like all the rest of them.

Lt-Col A. Tack

02-26-2007, 01:35 AM

Yes really. You also have trouble with literacy in your country, and obesity, and mental disorders, and oligarchy, but none of these will be detectable by stattelites.

Nice way of staying on topic :roll:

Your response made about as much sense as me pointing out that Russia has problem with corruption, aids, a declining population, and a fragile ego since the end of the USSR

You made an inaccurate statement. Just thought I'd point that out. I guessing English isn't your first language. Hope your better at rhetoric in your own language.

Lt-Col A. Tack

02-26-2007, 01:44 AM

I don't exaclty see what your trying to defend, sferrin?From what I can tell, he's not defending anything; He's attacking the logic and justification for a Russian threat to withdraw from the INF.

Smersh

02-26-2007, 03:34 AM

Like I said, sferrin denies there is any anti-russian element in poland and Czech republic accepting the ABM treaty. That it what I'm arguing. You guys just don't see reality, if you don't think that the case.

Saying this system is designed to combat an Iranian and N. Korean nuclear missile attack sounds like a joke to me, considering the Geography.

not to sound insulting, but maybe however strong the evidence is, it just doesn't get past your thick cold war educated russo-phobe skulls.

rrin

02-26-2007, 09:45 AM

Why do you keep arguing that 10 interceptors are nothing against a full scale attack when shot trajectory is not even that good for interception?

Because it's the truth.

rrin

02-26-2007, 09:47 AM

Like I said, sferrin denies there is any anti-russian element in poland and Czech republic accepting the ABM treaty. That it what I'm arguing.

Well you do keep repeating yourself but haven't yet explained how there's any merit to your drival. Tell us how 10 ABMs would make any difference at all in Russia's ability to deliver a devistating nuclear attack.

Mamont

02-26-2007, 10:43 AM

Well you do keep repeating yourself but haven't yet explained how there's any merit to your drival. Tell us how 10 ABMs would make any difference at all in Russia's ability to deliver a devistating nuclear attack.

Sferrin, you obviously overview this situation having in mind only situation when Russia launch an all-out surprise attack, which, politely speaking, is not correct or possible. Look at situation from the point that it's US that strike first, because it's obviously not Russia who develops massive first strike capability and permanent readyness of forces.

And about the truth - who are you to judge what is truth in this situation? US are well known for their lies. So no belief here until proven.

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-26-2007, 06:37 PM

Nice way of staying on topic :roll:

Your response made about as much sense as me pointing out that Russia has problem with corruption, aids, a declining population, and a fragile ego since the end of the USSR

You made an inaccurate statement. Just thought I'd point that out. I guessing English isn't your first language. Hope your better at rhetoric in your own language.

No, english isn't my first language, but it seems that i understand it better than you becuase you dont realize that spy sattelites dont detect nuclear bombs. Better quit now before making your self look even more entertaining.

rrin

02-26-2007, 09:32 PM

Sferrin, you obviously overview this situation having in mind only situation when Russia launch an all-out surprise attack, which, politely speaking, is not correct or possible. Look at situation from the point that it's US that strike first, because it's obviously not Russia who develops massive first strike capability and permanent readyness of forces.

And about the truth - who are you to judge what is truth in this situation? US are well known for their lies. So no belief here until proven.

rofl. In other words "uh. . ." As far as "first strike" goes you seem to be way, WAY out of touch. Who still has heavy ICBMs? Who still has megaton range warheads on their ICBMs?

Here's a couple of scenario's tell me which you prefer:

1. Iran launches an ICBM at the US, the US doesn't have ABMs, it lands in New York city and kills a million people. In retaliation the US launches 20 ICBMs back at Iran and nukes the **** out of them.

2. Iran launches an ICBM at the US, the US shoots it down, nobody dies, and the US launches some conventional strikes via aircraft and cruise missiles to take out a fiew sites in Iran.

1 or 2, which is it?

Xtoisè

02-26-2007, 11:39 PM

Because it's the truth.

So why not just drop it at "trajectory is not good to intercept ICBMs from Poland"? Why do you keep bringing up the "10 missiles against hundreds of missiles" argument?

rrin

02-27-2007, 01:41 AM

So why not just drop it at "trajectory is not good to intercept ICBMs from Poland"? Why do you keep bringing up the "10 missiles against hundreds of missiles" argument?

Because they are both valid. Which part is too complicated for you to understand?

Mamont

02-27-2007, 08:48 AM

rofl. In other words "uh. . ." As far as "first strike" goes you seem to be way, WAY out of touch. Who still has heavy ICBMs? Who still has megaton range warheads on their ICBMs?
Looks like you didn't do you homework. Let me enlighten you
R36M2/U - 10x550/800kt(will be scrapped in 2-5 years)
UR-100 - 6x550 (will be scrapped in 2-5 years)
RT23 - 10x430 (out of service)
Topol/M - 1x550 or 3x150 (many old topols will be scrapped)
RSM-54 - 4/10x50/550 (less that 10 year left)
RSM-52 - 10x550 (less that 10 year left)
And i see russian nuclear arsenal become smaller every year.

About first strike, you see, such thing against strong adversary will not be carried by ICBMs, which are easily detectable even with what left in russian hands(and much less trouble for US) and allow to prepare for the retaliatory strike. And now i don't see any russian military buildup near US borders, no foreighn russian bases, no invasions and very limited development and production of a new weapons. On the other hand US aggresively pursue it's political goals, stays on course of a total military supremacy from sea to space and developing effective means for the first disarming strike. So - who is the possible aggressor here?

Here's a couple of scenario's tell me which you prefer:
1 or 2, which is it?
Of course 1. I don't want any of that radioctive cr*p fall onto my head.

If you want ABM so badly - build in in Manhattan.

Lt-Col A. Tack

02-27-2007, 10:32 AM

No, english isn't my first language, but it seems that i understand it better than you becuase you dont realize that spy sattelites dont detect nuclear bombs. Better quit now before making your self look even more entertaining.

Rockets...we were talking about rockets. Check your original post!

And they are still having trouble with calculating how many rockets North Korea has. Link (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2331427&postcount=126)

And whether they are mobile or in silos, you can still see them with a satellite.

What's the Russian word for dyslexia?

Banko

02-27-2007, 11:30 AM

rofl. In other words "uh. . ." As far as "first strike" goes you seem to be way, WAY out of touch. Who still has heavy ICBMs? Who still has megaton range warheads on their ICBMs?

Here's a couple of scenario's tell me which you prefer:

1. Iran launches an ICBM at the US, the US doesn't have ABMs, it lands in New York city and kills a million people. In retaliation the US launches 20 ICBMs back at Iran and nukes the **** out of them.

2. Iran launches an ICBM at the US, the US shoots it down, nobody dies, and the US launches some conventional strikes via aircraft and cruise missiles to take out a fiew sites in Iran.

1 or 2, which is it?
I'll take option #3 nuking them no matter what.

Xtoisè

02-27-2007, 05:51 PM

Because they are both valid. Which part is too complicated for you to understand?

If you can't effectively shoot a missile down, then why keep using any other arguement at all? It's hard for me to understand why not just say "US can't shoot down effectively Russian missiles, end of story"

Interestingly that none of your arguements are backed by official reports from US' diplomatic side.

But actually your whole gameplay is obvious and easy to understand: you will deny any direct rhetoric against Russia but will still add some provacative statements; the way of a sabotuer or in your grand case - a spy.

You forget that besdies the 10 interceptors in eastern europe US is able to intercept more missiles from other positions, which sums up the probable interception to more than 10 objects.

Obering said the Russians have been receiving regular briefings on the plans and maintained the system is not capable of defending against Russian nuclear missiles.

The system is 'not designed against a Russian threat,' Obering said. 'We just don't see that.'

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-27-2007, 06:02 PM

Rockets...we were talking about rockets. Check your original post!

And whether they are mobile or in silos, you can still see them with a satellite.

What's the Russian word for dyslexia?

hmm, is this some kind of a trick you are trying to pull, i also want to add an insult but i wont.

back to step 1: I said that US does not know the exact numbers of NK rockets. This has been stated as a concern a while back becuase of inability to realize how many nuke tipped Taepedongs can reach US coast line.

I reffered to this as the case for spy sattelites' ability to detect number of missilies in Poland.

rrin

02-27-2007, 09:30 PM

If you can't effectively shoot a missile down, then why keep using any other arguement at all?

Who said the US can't shoot down missiles? I said that from Poland they can't shoot down missiles launched from Russia towards the US. Not the same thing at all despite your efforts to twist words. Put those same ABMs in Greenland or Canada and no sweat.

It's hard for me to understand why not just say "US can't shoot down effectively Russian missiles, end of story"

Because it isn't an accurate comment. If my car is out of gas it doesn't mean I'm incapable of driving a car it means THAT car isn't going anywhere until it gets some fuel. Get it?

Interestingly that none of your arguements are backed by official reports from US' diplomatic side.

Funny, which report by from "US' diplomatic side" says ABMs in Poland are a threat to Russia?

"Obering said the Russians have been receiving regular briefings on the plans and maintained the system is not capable of defending against Russian nuclear missiles.

The system is 'not designed against a Russian threat,' Obering said. 'We just don't see that.' "

This says exactly what I've been saying. Am I typing to a five-year old?

But actually your whole gameplay is obvious and easy to understand: you will deny any direct rhetoric against Russia but will still add some provacative statements; the way of a sabotuer or in your grand case - a spy.

LOL you really do have a problem there don't you?

You forget that besdies the 10 interceptors in eastern europe US is able to intercept more missiles from other positions, which sums up the probable interception to more than 10 objects.

So? We're talking about the 10 in Poland. Oh and let's not forget Russia's one HUNDRED ABMs around Moscow which is clearly a threat to the US in your book. If you think 10 ABMs are destabilizing you must think those Russian ABMs are ten times as destabilizing right?

Nagan

02-27-2007, 10:30 PM

LOL you'd rather have the fallout from 20 to 50 nuclear detonations come your way huh? The really funny part about this whole exercise is in the end Putina is impotent to do ***** about ABMs going into Poland so he can cry all he wants and it won't make a damn bit of difference.

This last ranting just about sums up your REAL stance. Means that you Gringos can whine your tonsils out, Russias partners in S.America and M.East will get any defensive equipment they possibly can afford. And with a little luck and political goodwill, also such that they can't afford.

Cause everybody has a right to defend himself, heh heh!

rrin

02-27-2007, 10:35 PM

This last ranting just about sums up your REAL stance.

Nah, my real stance is it's absurd for Russia to be whining about the ABMs as we're never going to go to war with them anyway. Do you think any president would be stupid enough to risk even one nuke landing on US soil?

Nagan

02-27-2007, 11:06 PM

Nah, my real stance is it's absurd for Russia to be whining about the ABMs as we're never going to go to war with them anyway. Do you think any president would be stupid enough to risk even one nuke landing on US soil?

That's the problem, the multiple Dr Strangeloves you have sitting in Washington and immediate surroundings probably calculate that a few nukes "in our own garden" is a fair price to pay for an exchange, after which quite enormous domains open up for occupation.

It's 10 interceptors today, but it will be a 100 tomorrow, why are you constantly repeating this low number like a robot? The door will be open with this batch and then you will pry it wider with neverending additions and addendums.

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-27-2007, 11:33 PM

Is sferring making any sense to everyone here, or is it just me thinking that his answers dont make any sense?

TheArmenian

02-28-2007, 02:35 AM

It's 10 interceptors today, but it will be a 100 tomorrow, why are you constantly repeating this low number like a robot? The door will be open with this batch and then you will pry it wider with neverending additions and addendums.

Very true.

Anyways, don't you guys think that this thread (and similar ones) has dragged for too long?

rrin

02-28-2007, 09:36 AM

That's the problem, the multiple Dr Strangeloves you have sitting in Washington and immediate surroundings probably calculate that a few nukes "in our own garden" is a fair price to pay for an exchange, after which quite enormous domains open up for occupation.

It's 10 interceptors today, but it will be a 100 tomorrow, why are you constantly repeating this low number like a robot? The door will be open with this batch and then you will pry it wider with neverending additions and addendums.

I might ask why you are so paranoid. I could just as easily say "well you're deploying 7 more Topols this year, how do we know it won't be a hundred more next year?"

rrin

02-28-2007, 09:42 AM

Is sferring making any sense to everyone here, or is it just me thinking that his answers dont make any sense?

Which part of what I'm saying is sailing over your head? The part where I say it's ridiculous to think 10 ABMs are going to zero out the capability of Russia to launch a nuclear strike or the part where I say that aren't even in a position to hit Russian ICBMs? I mean seriously I can only dumb it down so far.

Mamont

02-28-2007, 10:26 AM

Is sferring making any sense to everyone here, or is it just me thinking that his answers dont make any sense?

Agree. Maybe someone else with more knowledge and sence must defend ABM placement.

Flamming_Python

02-28-2007, 11:55 AM

I might ask why you are so paranoid. I could just as easily say "well you're deploying 7 more Topols this year, how do we know it won't be a hundred more next year?"

Why we're "so paranoid" has already been pointed out time and time again on this thread. Go back and read again :|

This post is a good start: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2335581&postcount=157, but there are plenty of other reasons too.

rrin

02-28-2007, 09:33 PM

Agree. Maybe someone else with more knowledge and sence must defend ABM placement.

Sorry but if you can't comprehend the most basic of arguements maybe you should have stuck to pop-up books.

SRT-M4

02-28-2007, 09:59 PM

Well, as long as the Ruskies are selling weapons designed to shoot down American aircraft and sink American warships to our biggest enemies I see no problem in putting a Ballistic Missle defense in Russias backyard. Thats our way of thanking you for giving the Iraqi's those useless Gps jammers at the beginning of the conflict.
I personally would love nothing more than to see the US and Russia become allies. That would benifit both countries. We have common enemies that we could defeat together, but I just dont see it happening for a long time.

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-28-2007, 10:14 PM

Well, as long as the Ruskies are selling weapons designed to shoot down American aircraft and sink American warships to our biggest enemies I see no problem in putting a Ballistic Missle defense in Russias backyard. Thats our way of thanking you for giving the Iraqi's those useless Gps jammers at the beginning of the conflict.
I personally would love nothing more than to see the US and Russia become allies. That would benifit both countries. We have common enemies that we could defeat together, but I just dont see it happening for a long time.

No common enemies here, one Afghanistan was enough for Russia.

SRT-M4

02-28-2007, 10:57 PM

No common enemies here, one Afghanistan was enough for Russia.
What about Islamic radicals such as Al Qaeda and its friends the Chechen Rebels. The kind of people that take children hostage in a school or blow up 3000+ innocent civilians. I believe that we can call that common enemies.

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-28-2007, 11:01 PM

What about Islamic radicals such as Al Qaeda and its friends the Chechen Rebels. The kind of people that take children hostage in a school or blow up 3000+ innocent civilians. I believe that we can call that common enemies.

Nope, not common at all, except that they are Islamists.

SRT-M4

02-28-2007, 11:04 PM

Hmmmm?? OK.
Islamist , Radicals, Kill our kind for alot of the same reasons, they help each other out on different fronts against both of our Nations. Common to me anyway.

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-28-2007, 11:23 PM

Hmmmm?? OK.
Islamist , Radicals, Kill our kind for alot of the same reasons, they help each other out on different fronts against both of our Nations. Common to me anyway.

You are partialy right. Chechens help out Iraqis in Iraq, but there are no Iraqis near Chechnya.

Smersh

02-28-2007, 11:28 PM

Kill our kind..

sorry but, what is "our kind" exactly?

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-28-2007, 11:33 PM

sorry but, what is "our kind" exactly?

Maybe he means "Christians"?

SRT-M4

03-02-2007, 12:11 AM

Not so much Christians but civilized human beings who think logically. I was under the assumtion that the Ruskies were on the same playing field as the West when it comes to being a modern civilization? Am I wrong?

Xtoisè

03-03-2007, 03:24 AM

Not so much Christians but civilized human beings who think logically. I was under the assumtion that the Ruskies were on the same playing field as the West when it comes to being a modern civilization? Am I wrong?

I think Ruskies are way too backward to even understand their backwardness.

Sergei

03-03-2007, 02:40 PM

Not so much Christians but civilized human beings who think logically. I was under the assumtion that the Ruskies were on the same playing field as the West when it comes to being a modern civilization? Am I wrong?

Of course you are wrong. Russkies are undomesticated barbarians with some domesticated bears and boxes of vodka and bunch of balalaikas. Happy now?

SRT-M4

03-03-2007, 03:23 PM

Of course you are wrong. Russkies are undomesticated barbarians with some domesticated bears and boxes of vodka and bunch of balalaikas. Happy now?

Ha! Yeah Im happy. Happy to be American in my plush luxurious society!

Smersh

03-03-2007, 07:56 PM

so its western civilization vs. those barbaric oreintals. Us and them

asch

03-03-2007, 08:05 PM

I think Ruskies are way too backward to even understand their backwardness.

and we eat babies too. p-)

Serjey

03-09-2007, 06:11 AM

I`m russian and i`m absolutely agree with our president.
Let me tell my point of view:
First of all is NATO expansion, as we all know NATO is military alliance, so everyone should understand that its not just defence of poor countries and democracy allie. So west(USA, Europe) say that expansion to russian borders is connected with providing defence from some agressive arabish countries, but every russian knows where are those countries and they are rather far from our borders. Then the question is: from whom they are going to defend countries close to russian borders? IMO NATO is going to place their shield and radars closer to our nuclear bases and their millitary bases(forses) closer to our borders, this is already agression.
Everyone says that cold war was over, but just think is that possible? IMO cold war never ended, just for now countries keep silence about their thoughts about new ways of ruining balance.
About USA shield: that shield will get them an advantage in possible nuclear war and thats why Russia cant accept it and let things go as they are going, thats why we announced about new type of weapon, and this shield will be senceless against it, its not agression it`s just way of keeping balance between nuclear coutries.
Well why should some(or alot) of countries would like to capture russia? The point is clear here, we have alot natural resourses: land, trees, oil, gas, ect.
If u`ll look in history, every century Russia was at war with smb and most of all we just defended our country.

daily666

03-09-2007, 06:20 AM

I`m russian and i`m absolutely agree with our president.
Let me tell my point of view:
First of all is NATO expansion, as we all know NATO is military alliance, so everyone should understand that its not just defence of poor countries and democracy allie. So west(USA, Europe) say that expansion to russian borders is connected with providing defence from some agressive arabish countries, but every russian knows where are those countries and they are rather far from our borders. Then the question is: from whom they are going to defend countries close to russian borders? IMO NATO is going to place their shield and radars closer to our nuclear bases and their millitary bases(forses) closer to our borders, this is already agression.
Everyone says that cold war was over, but just think is that possible? IMO cold war never ended, just for now countries keep silence about their thoughts about new ways of ruining balance.
About USA shield: that shield will get them an advantage in possible nuclear war and thats why Russia cant accept it and let things go as they are going, thats why we announced about new type of weapon, and this shield will be senceless against it, its not agression it`s just way of keeping balance between nuclear coutries.
Well why should some(or alot) of countries would like to capture russia? The point is clear here, we have alot natural resourses: land, trees, oil, gas, ect.
If u`ll look in history, every century Russia was at war with smb and most of all we just defended our country.

Do you really think someone would like to conquer Russia? Who? US? From where. NATO? How? Get a grip mate, the only country which would be capable and have good position to do so is China. Problem is they're too focused on their booming economy to attack anybody.

Do you really think someone would like to conquer Russia? Well yes.
Who? US? From where. NATO? How? Do u remember WWI and WWII? Countries join some allie and start war against smb following thier interests. Alot of ways could be possible, nuclear its ofrouse the last varient, but if russian military forses would be nothing, US, NATO influence can get our independence at once.
Get a grip mate, the only country which would be capable and have good position to do so is China. Problem is they're too focused on their booming economy to attack anybody. As i told dont just keep mind on ONE country.

I'm afraid of paranoids like you. Well its your point, thought that forum polite should have place and nothing personal should be told, cuz its offtopic

...........

Drako

03-09-2007, 01:07 PM

If u`ll look in history, every century Russia was at war with smb and most of all we just defended our country.

Somehow you were always defending your country on other countries territories and somehow later those territories happened to become part of russian territory. You really should look into history books. Just make sure they were not written in USSR.

SRT-M4

03-09-2007, 07:19 PM

Somehow you were always defending your country on other countries territories and somehow later those territories happened to become part of russian territory. You really should look into history books. Just make sure they were not written in USSR.
Well said!

asch

03-09-2007, 09:18 PM

Somehow you were always defending your country on other countries territories and somehow later those territories happened to become part of russian territory. You really should look into history books. Just make sure they were not written in USSR.
huh, really? part of RSFSR? or modern Russia? explain, please?

Drako

03-10-2007, 04:12 PM

huh, really? part of RSFSR? or modern Russia? explain, please?

You can start searching in the beginning of tzarist Russia. Of course ie. Napoleon did invade Russia but for the sake of balance - in that time Russia's western border run in the middle of Poland :P

asch

03-10-2007, 09:31 PM

You can start searching in the beginning of tzarist Russia. Of course ie. Napoleon did invade Russia but for the sake of balance - in that time Russia's western border run in the middle of Poland :P

all of this reminds me of two willage families with their 160 yrs vendetta beginning when one grand-grandpa accidentally kill neighbour's dog.:cantbeli:

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 11:46 AM

i mean, if we can't overcome centuries old grudges, how we ever can hope to make a civilized talk?

seriously, i thought world is a better place before i come to MPnet and got addicted by it. p-)
Yeah , the internet can sometimes bring out our true colors.
You Ruskies arent that bad.

odiniz

03-11-2007, 11:49 AM

Just to make clear the situation. Who is enemy for NATO in Europe now?

Switek

03-11-2007, 11:51 AM

Just to make clear the situation. Who is enemy for NATO in Europe now?

Right now? No one.

odiniz

03-11-2007, 11:54 AM

So explain pls against whom NATO growing up?

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 11:56 AM

Right now? No one.
Yeah and we would like to keep it that way. Cmon Russia be our ally.:hug:

Switek

03-11-2007, 11:58 AM

So explain pls against whom NATO growing up?

unstable, undemocratic regimes and terror states and int. terroristic organisations

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 11:59 AM

So explain pls against whom NATO growing up?
To secure peace is to prepare for war. NATO is a strong alliance ( or shouls I say sometimes strong) for nations to come together against any common threat.

odiniz

03-11-2007, 12:08 PM

NATO is against non NATO members. Few years ago strong and brave NATO under leadership of US bomb Croatia. Who else not member?

I would like to ask again. If there is no enemys for NATO in Europe, what for NATO
growing up?

Switek

03-11-2007, 12:09 PM

Yeah and we would like to keep it that way. Cmon Russia be our ally.:hug:

NATO member states
Partnership for Peace countries
Mediterranean Dialogue countries

odiniz

03-11-2007, 12:10 PM

unstable, undemocratic regimes and terror states and int. terroristic organisations

Sory, are you from another planet?

Switek

03-11-2007, 12:14 PM

NATO is against non NATO members. Few years ago strong and brave NATO under leadership of US bomb Croatia. Who else not member?

I would like to ask again. If there is no enemys for NATO in Europe, what for NATO
growing up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

Why the hell do you start ask the same question after getting answers?

unstable, undemocratic regimes and terror states and int. terroristic organisations

To secure peace is to prepare for war. NATO is a strong alliance ( or shouls I say sometimes strong) for nations to come together against any common threat.

Switek

03-11-2007, 12:15 PM

unstable, undemocratic regimes and terror states and int. terroristic organisations

Sory, are you from another planet?

no, but you must be an obvious moron :bash:

odiniz

03-11-2007, 12:20 PM

unstable, undemocratic regimes and terror states and int. terroristic organisations

And of course only USA and NATO will make solution who is unstable or undemocratic...

Look how stable is Iraq now after NATO's actions

Switek

03-11-2007, 12:21 PM

And of course only USA and NATO will make solution who is unstable or undemocratic...

Look how stable is Iraq now after NATO's actions

Iraq has nothing to do with NATO

odiniz

03-11-2007, 12:26 PM

But I supposed thet USA is a member of NATO

Switek

03-11-2007, 12:29 PM

But I supposed thet USA is a member of NATO

yes, yes, yes... but to defeat Saddam was made a coallition of some NATO members and many others nations. Some NATO countries - France and Germany, for example, were against the intervention

odiniz

03-11-2007, 12:39 PM

After the "victory" they killed not only Saddam, but hundreds thousand iraqy people dying daily because of "Unstable regim". May be NATO will help them?

Switek

03-11-2007, 12:43 PM

After the "victory" they killed not only Saddam, but hundreds thousand iraqy people dying daily because of "Unstable regim". May be NATO will help them?

Dude, who kills Iraqis, coallition forces, NATO?

odiniz

03-11-2007, 12:49 PM

Dude, who kills Iraqis, coallition forces, NATO?

What is the result of coallition' actions if quantity of killed in Iraqy people now more than during Saddam? Unsuccsessful experiment?

Switek

03-11-2007, 01:14 PM

No, US and its allies made some political mistakes and obviously underestimated destabilising role of Syria and Iran...

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 01:46 PM

Russia is our ally

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/NATO_Partners.png/800px-NATO_Partners.png
An uneasy one at best. I dont expect to go to war with Russia anytime soon but you have to admit we are a thorn in each others side.
Remember , we always agree to disagree.
I hope someday that we can be strategic allies.

Switek

03-11-2007, 01:50 PM

An uneasy one at best. I dont expect to go to war with Russia anytime soon but you have to admit we are a thorn in each others side.
Remember , we always agree to disagree.
I hope someday that we can be strategic allies.

Well, Russia signed many papers but it its will to decide. Anyway Russia always firmly stood on its own side

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 01:51 PM

No, US and its allies made some political mistakes and obviously underestimated destabilising role of Syria and Iran...
Exactly. Look at The Kurdish North of Iraq. If the rest of Iraq would get their heads on straight and quit exterminating each other then the rest of Iraq could prosper. Talk about some backward thinking people.
The USA and its allies gave Iraq every oppurtunity to become a free and democratic nation. Yes, we made mistakes but it isnt the US's fault that Shiites and Sunnis cannot get along.
Il shut about this though. It will turn into another pissing contest!lol

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 01:53 PM

Well, Russia signed many papers but it its will to decide. Anyway Russia always firmly stood on its own side
True, very True.

TheArmenian

03-11-2007, 02:20 PM

An uneasy one at best. I dont expect to go to war with Russia anytime soon but you have to admit we are a thorn in each others side.
Remember , we always agree to disagree.
I hope someday that we can be strategic allies.

You are right, there won't be a US-Russia war (otherwise it's the end of planet Earth).

Both countries are allies on many issues. They also disagree on other matters. Show me two countries in the world who agree on everything all the time p-)

Both Russia and US look for "zones of influence".

After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the US has expanded it's "zone of influance" and has incorporated some ex-Soviet/Warsaw pact countries. A resurgent Russia is trying to stop (or even reverse) that. That's all.

Switek

03-11-2007, 02:22 PM

...
After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the US has expanded it's "zone of influance" and has incorporated some ex-Soviet/Warsaw pact countries. A resurgent Russia is trying to stop (or even reverse) that. That's all.

WTF are you talking about? US do not go former USSR way...

kosse

03-11-2007, 02:28 PM

Both Russia and US look for "zones of influence".

If that's the case Russia has picked totally wrong way to do it. Bullying smaller countries will only make them seek security from US.

TheArmenian

03-11-2007, 02:35 PM

WTF are you talking about? US do not go former USSR way...

Once again you are drinking too much beer while posting :bash:

As an example Poland has moved from Warsaw pact to NATO, i.e from SU's " zone of influence" to USA's. What's so hard to undestand.

TheArmenian

03-11-2007, 02:37 PM

If that's the case Russia has picked totally wrong way to do it. Bullying smaller countries will only make them seek security from US.

As an example Poland has moved from Warsaw pact to NATO, i.e from SU's " zone of influence" to USA's. What's so hard to undestand.

Try to be funny? No, your'e wretched... Maybe your short memory is diagnostic. Look what you wrore once again:

You are right, there won't be a US-Russia war (otherwise it's the end of planet Earth).

Both countries are allies on many issues. They also disagree on other matters. Show me two countries in the world who agree on everything all the time p-)

Both Russia and US look for "zones of influence".

After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the US has expanded it's "zone of influance" and has incorporated some ex-Soviet/Warsaw pact countries. A resurgent Russia is trying to stop (or even reverse) that. That's all.

Don't change meaning of this post.... Soviet propagand BS is so strong in your vains and mind that you can't resist posting such stupidity?

So that's what you are calling bullying...You probably also consider "increasing gas prices" bullying as well.

I believe the countries you mentioned should find ways of living with their big neighbour (instead of back and forth accusations). Joining NATO and putting ABM missiles on your territories does not help in relations.

Many people are failing to understand the Russian way of thinking:

- Yesterday : NATO enlargement towards Russia

- Today : ABM missiles/radars in Poland/Czech republic

- Tomorrow : ??????

TheArmenian

03-11-2007, 03:23 PM

Try to be funny? No, your'e wretched... Maybe your short memory is diagnostic. Look what you wrore once again:

Don't change meaning of this post....

I have not changed any meaning. I illustrated my first post with the second one....and you still fail to understand . Sorry, you are beyond help.

Soviet propagand BS is so strong in your vains and mind that you can't resist posting such stupidity?

Switek, you are known to suffer from Russophobia...and I don't care, I am not Russian.

BTW, I dislike the Soviet system and there is not a bit of Soviet propaganda in my vains. Stop being creative in your own stupidity and accusing others with pure BS.

Switek

03-11-2007, 03:35 PM

Armenian., The expansion of NATO was initative of democratic free countries which used to be exploited by USSR. As for Poles we wanted go to NATO much more than NATO to us.

Being in NATO my country is still free and sovereign and have its own independent foreign and internal policy.

Time to learn those basic facts.

If you don't care why did you mention this? I'm labelled "Ruspohobe" by those who can't see difference between criticising its leaders and neoimperial of its country policy and Russia itself. Most of them are "patriots" on exile.

You post stupid things in soviet style ... which are nothing but BS ( #230; #227; #226; #223)... Mother Russia and "Russia strong" crew will be proud of you...

Good Night

odiniz

03-11-2007, 04:35 PM

[quote=Switek;2362015]Armenian., The expansion of NATO was initative of democratic free countries which used to be exploited by USSR. As for Poles we wanted go to NATO much more than NATO to us.

Being in NATO my country is still free and sovereign and have its own independent foreign and internal policy.

Time to learn those basic facts.

But please learn the fact, that making your independent solution to have on your territory part of ABM you probably will be as the aim for the arms of another side. Is it okey?

You was born in "soviet stile" country, Warsow pact was signed in your country...
It is just to remind

Switek

03-11-2007, 04:45 PM

You was born in "soviet stile" country, Warsow pact was signed in your country...
It is just to remind

You don't need to remind me. I remeber this very well... This why I know and underestand so much....

TheArmenian

03-11-2007, 05:07 PM

Armenian., The expansion of NATO was initative of democratic free countries which used to be exploited by USSR. As for Poles we wanted go to NATO much more than NATO to us.

Switek, you are wrongly accusing me of Soviet-style propaganda. Yet, you blindly believe in what you read/hear in the Western media. Wake up, CNN, BBC and all the rest are just as biased as the ****ty Soviet propaganda machine.

Being in NATO my country is still free and sovereign and have its own independent foreign and internal policy.
Yes, your foreign policy is just as free as when you were a member of the Warsaw pact:roll: . Come on SWITEK.

I'm labelled "Ruspohobe" by those who can't see difference between criticising its leaders and neoimperial of its country policy and Russia itself. Most of them are "patriots" on exile.

Naturally. You have singled out their country/leadership/policies as the only one to be criticized. Look at the multitude of your posts on all these threads.
Why don't you find yourself a few other countries to tackle with:)

You post stupid things in soviet style ... which are nothing but BS ( #230; #227; #226; #223)...
My posts will make more sense to you if you overcome that above disease that is unfortunately blinding you.

Mother Russia and "Russia strong" crew will be proud of you...

Sorry, it is Mother Armenia that I care about most.

To change the subject: did you know that Armenia has a few dozen troops serving in Iraq as part of your Polish contingent?

And good night to you as well.

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 05:31 PM

So that's what you are calling bullying...You probably also consider "increasing gas prices" bullying as well.

I believe the countries you mentioned should find ways of living with their big neighbour (instead of back and forth accusations). Joining NATO and putting ABM missiles on your territories does not help in relations.

Many people are failing to understand the Russian way of thinking:

- Yesterday : NATO enlargement towards Russia

- Today : ABM missiles/radars in Poland/Czech republic

- Tomorrow : ??????
The US is just flexing its muscles.
Besides I think that these smaller former Warsaw pact countries will be a lot better of being on the West's side. They are joining by choice this time. They wont be oppressed.

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 05:33 PM

Countries such as Poland are proving to be very trusting allies to the US. We do appreciate it and will not forget what you are doing for us.
It is good to be a friend of the United States.

TheArmenian

03-11-2007, 05:39 PM

Countries such as Poland are proving to be very trusting allies to the US. We do appreciate it and will not forget what you are doing for us.
It is good to be a friend of the United States.

You sound like President Bush.

odiniz

03-11-2007, 05:50 PM

Countries such as Poland are proving to be very trusting allies to the US. We do appreciate it and will not forget what you are doing for us.
It is good to be a friend of the United States.

And don't forget Switek, that Serbia and Iraq were not friends of US.
It is bad not tj be a friend of United States.

Smashed!

03-11-2007, 07:35 PM

The US is just flexing its muscles.
Besides I think that these smaller former Warsaw pact countries will be a lot better of being on the West's side. They are joining by choice this time. They wont be oppressed.

Yes and at the same time it's saying :'look how my "screw-russia" T-shirt is cracking' to it's allies and look away to Russia!

asch

03-11-2007, 08:48 PM

The US is just flexing its muscles.
remember "NATO will never expands to East" thing? clear lie to me, not some muscle flexing.

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 08:54 PM

The US is helping to bring these coutries out of the eastern block era. They will modernize and be able to prosper unlike when they were under Soviet rule. Look at East Germany and West Germany. You sure didnt see people risking there lives trying to cross the Berlin wall going East!lol

daily666

03-11-2007, 08:58 PM

remember "NATO will never expands to East" thing? clear lie to me, not some muscle flexing.

I've seen that statement posted several times by Russians, here, on this forum. Is there any source I can read about anyone actually making such promise to Russia?

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 08:58 PM

You sound like President Bush.
Do I. Do you think that I could run for president?

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 08:59 PM

I've seen that statement posted several times by Russians, here, on this forum. Is there any source I can read about anyone actually making such promise to Russia?
I know. Why wouldnt the US and its European allies want to help the countries in the East. I doesnt look like big brother Russia can.

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 09:04 PM

And don't forget Switek, that Serbia and Iraq were not friends of US.
It is bad not tj be a friend of United States.

Thats right. lol
Just ask the Kurds if we are not there friends and did not make life better for them.
Its not the USA's fault that the rest of those weirdo's dont want peace and stability. Death and Carnige are all they seem to know.
Yeah we should have let the Mass killings go on in Serbia. That would have been the right thing to do.:roll:

Smashed!

03-11-2007, 09:15 PM

Thats right. lol
Just ask the Kurds if we are not there friends and did not make life better for them.
Its not the USA's fault that the rest of those weirdo's dont want peace and stability. Death and Carnige are all they seem to know.
Yeah we should have let the Mass killings go on in Serbia. That would have been the right thing to do.:roll:

You must be pinned on the hall of fame of naivety! See those "mass killings" in serbia were reciprocated by the Albanians once the JNA left Kosovo. And now the basis of the Rambouillet and Dayton deals will be broken (as always with ZE WEST) and the mass killings will start again to ethnically clean Kosovo from its serbs. Great intervention.

SRT-M4

03-11-2007, 09:24 PM

Yeah, it must be the West's fault.
I will admit I dont know a whole lot about whats going on in Serbia and Kosovo. Please educate me on that.
I can assure you though that the over politically correct West stepped in to save lives from a Barbaric government. Ethnic cleansing is high on the list of things that the Americans and Europeans dont care to see in its backyard. No matter who is doing it.

nahimov

03-11-2007, 09:39 PM

Thats right. lol
Just ask the Kurds if we are not there friends and did not make life better for them.
Its not the USA's fault that the rest of those weirdo's dont want peace and stability. Death and Carnige are all they seem to know.
Yeah we should have let the Mass killings go on in Serbia. That would have been the right thing to do.:roll:

Yeah it's not US's fault that it invaded Iraq, released it's army (creating thousands of unemployed soldiers), never securing any weapon dumps, and not having a clear plan or any idea what "might" happen when you indroduce chaose into a society which has had ethnical/religious struggles for 1000 years. Nah, US has nothing to do with it.

Smashed!

03-11-2007, 09:44 PM

Yeah, it must be the West's fault.
I will admit I dont know a whole lot about whats going on in Serbia and Kosovo. Please educate me on that.
I can assure you though that the over politically correct West stepped in to save lives from a Barbaric government. Ethnic cleansing is high on the list of things that the Americans and Europeans dont care to see in its backyard. No matter who is doing it.

It's almost caricatural. p-)

Kap2406

03-11-2007, 10:11 PM

I've seen that statement posted several times by Russians, here, on this forum. Is there any source I can read about anyone actually making such promise to Russia?

The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with the reunification of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reunification_of_Germany) on 3 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_3) 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990), when the former East Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany) became part of the Federal Republic of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Germany) and the alliance. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Plus_Four_Treaty) earlier in the year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the east, and also that NATO would never expand further east.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#_note-9)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

Smashed!

03-11-2007, 10:20 PM

The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with the reunification of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reunification_of_Germany) on 3 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_3) 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990), when the former East Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany) became part of the Federal Republic of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Germany) and the alliance. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Plus_Four_Treaty) earlier in the year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the east, and also that NATO would never expand further east.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#_note-9)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

Unfortunately the US has always said this was made during Soviet times when the USSR was a formal enemy. Russia isn't considered as such (yes I know it's almost funny) thus the Four plus two treaty doesn't count. In the american mindset at least.

SRT-M4

03-12-2007, 12:10 AM

Unfortunately the US has always said this was made during Soviet times when the USSR was a formal enemy. Russia isn't considered as such (yes I know it's almost funny) thus the Four plus two treaty doesn't count. In the american mindset at least.
The US is just being there for these countrys when Russia couldnt be.
We are just stretching our influence and democracy of free nations. We pushed that on Russia too for a while but it looks to be backfiring. I think this is why Russia doesnt like the US. We were forcing beliefs on you when you were vulnerable. Russia has to much pride for that( I cant blame Russia either).

asch

03-12-2007, 12:26 AM

The US is just being there for these countrys when Russia couldnt be.
We are just stretching our influence and democracy of free nations. We pushed that on Russia too for a while but it looks to be backfiring. I think this is why Russia doesnt like the US. We were forcing beliefs on you when you were vulnerable. Russia has to much pride for that( I cant blame Russia either).

cheap excuses don't justify lies and not convince us to trust you again.
you must undestand one simple fact - in the beginning of 90's USA has a very good image and rep in the eyes of average russian. now it's very different, thanks to all this shyte.
p.s.

We were forcing beliefs on you when you were vulnerable.
all praise western system of values, "democracy" etc.p-)

Switek

03-12-2007, 04:11 AM

Switek, you are wrongly accusing me of Soviet-style propaganda. Yet, you blindly believe in what you read/hear in the Western media. Wake up, CNN, BBC and all the rest are just as biased as the ****ty Soviet propaganda machine.

Yes, your foreign policy is just as free as when you were a member of the Warsaw pact:roll: . Come on SWITEK.

Naturally. You have singled out their country/leadership/policies as the only one to be criticized. Look at the multitude of your posts on all these threads.
Why don't you find yourself a few other countries to tackle with:)

My posts will make more sense to you if you overcome that above disease that is unfortunately blinding you.

Sorry, it is Mother Armenia that I care about most.

To change the subject: did you know that Armenia has a few dozen troops serving in Iraq as part of your Polish contingent?...

All simplifications and generalisations are propagande alike. It really dosen't matter where they are coming from.

I remeber exacltly how independent Poland was being Warsaw Pact member. Let me point one significant difference: There were about 13 sities in Poland were Soviets storaged nuclear warheads. No one ever asked Poles whether they want them on its own territory or not. Poland did not have independent foreign/internal policy during this time. Now all things changed. Sorry mate but I can see the difference. ABM instalations are made public before Poland made final agreement to host them. We are making a deal with US. Our sovergenity will be limited in some way after it but we are going to get something for that.

When I realized how biased and offensive were some post toward my country and my fellow citizens I got a cold shower. Guys who represent neoimperial attitude toward the world are crossing limits of the decency giving lessons about democracy and moral values. People who believe that are being surrounded by evil enemies who want concquer their country and people who put false statements about history can't expectt my underestanding and acceptance.

I know what you mean but I do not accept the style

Both Russia and US look for "zones of influence".
After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the US has expanded it's "zone of influance" and has incorporated some ex-Soviet/Warsaw pact countries.

I'm sorry nate but whatever happened in my country during the lat 18 years was under democratic values and it represents our national interest. To be treated as a equal partner for all members of international community. Poland with its size and economical power must secure its safety by different alliances. Russian imperial mentality is a threat... If you know more my posts and some threads you should know that I do not accept Putin's style attitude which is very similar to some old soviet patterns

Dif

03-12-2007, 06:22 PM

No one ever asked Poles whether they want them on its own territory or not. Poland did not have independent foreign/internal policy during this time. Now all things changed. Sorry mate but I can see the difference. ABM instalations are made public before Poland made final agreement to host them. We are making a deal with US.

The fact that ABM installation was made public does not mean that it is a clever thing to do..